Course name = Logic and critical thinking

Course code = PHIL 101

Chapter One

Logic and philosophy

What is philosophy?

The word Philosophy is derived from two Greek words; ‘Philo’ and ‘Sophia’.

 Philo= is love
 Sophia = is wisdom or knowledge
 Therefore, philosophy is love or search of wisdom or knowledge.

Main fields of philosophy

Logic

Philosophy Metaphysics

Epistemology

Axiology

1. Logic = science that evaluates argument by its reasoning.

 Logic is science of true reasoning.
 Argument is system of reasoning in conversation to convince. It produces
evidences.
 Reasoning can be in favour of or against.
2. Metaphysics = is the study of existence or reality.
 It is about things beyond physics or matter.
 It came from two Greek words: Meta (beyond, after, upon) and physika (physics).
Concerns things after physics.
 Concerns cause and effect relations.
 “What is life? “What is the ultimate real?”, “can God exist, how do we proof?” are
its questions.
 Metaphysics can be divided in to four.
 Cosmology=study of theory of origin of nature and development of universe.
 Theology= is religious theory that deals with conceptions of ---- and about God.

1
  Anthropology= is study of human beings. The relation between mind and body. “is
mind more important than other body?” , “what is humanity’s moral status?” is
human born good? Evil or neutral?’ “To what extent are individuals free?’
 Ontology= study of nature of existence. “is basic reality found in matter or physical
energy (the world we see?”) or is it found in spirit?”, “is reality orderly & lawful in
itself or is it merely orderable by the human mind?”
3. Epistemology = is the study of meaning and source of human knowledge.
 ‘What is the source of human knowledge?’ and ‘what is the extreme knowledge?’,
“what does it mean to know?” “How do we know correctness of things we
perceive?’ “What is the difference between faith and reason?”are its questions.
4. Axiology = is the study of values (respect).
 It is from two Greek words. Axio= value or worth; logos= reason, theory,
symbol, science, study. “what is value?”, “where does value come from?”. “What
is valuable &how do we know it?”
 Axiology has three types.
 Ethics (Ethical value)=is moral philosophy. Has three branches (meta ethics=
investigate good, bad, right & wrong; Normative ethics=determine moral rules;
applied ethics=explain & apply moral rules.) Ethics determine human conducts.
 Aesthetics=is theory of beauty, art and enjoyment.” what is art?”, “what is
beauty?” relation between the two. “why works of art are valuable?’
 Social or political philosophy=studies about value judgements in civil society.
(social or political). “What kind of government is good?’, what economic system
is the best?”, “what is justice or injustice?”, “are we obliged to obey all laws of
state?”

Features of philosophy

Philosophy:-

 Is set of views or beliefs(diverse attitudes of persons)

 Is process of reflecting on & criticizing conceptions & beliefs,
 Is logical analysis of language,
 Is group of problems for which philosophers search answers.

2
 CHAPTER TWO

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

Uses of logic:

 To make good (sound) & fallacy free argument.

 To defend in good way others’ argument,
 To identify good argument from bad argument,
 To know errors in reasoning.
ARGUMENT, PREMISES AND CONCLUSION
 Logic is science that evaluates argument by its reasoning or it science of true
reasoning,
 Argument is process of reasoning to convince by providing evidence.
 Argument is combination of one or more statements (premises) that may support other
statement (conclusion). And argument is criticized by the strength of the evidences.
 Statements of arguments can be true or false, but not both.
 All statements are sentences but the vice versa is not true.
 Questions, slogans, suggestions, commands and proposals are sentences but
not statements therefore they are not used in arguments. They are neither true
nor false.
 Statement is declarative sentence.
 Most of the time statement of conclusion comes at the end of argument but not all
ways.
 If all premises support conclusion, it is said to be good argument. And if not it is bad
argument.
 Premises claim while conclusion justifies.
Example 1:-
All crimes are violations of laws.(premise 1)
Theft is crime. (Premise 2)
Therefore, theft is violation of laws. (Conclusion)
The above argument is good argument.

Example 2:-

Man is mortal. (P1)

3
Tolcha is man.(P2)

Therefore, Tolcha is mortal. (Conclusion).

The above is good argument.

Example 3.

All animals which eat grass are creatures which pose threat to people.(P1-false )

Sheep is creature that eats grass. (P2-true )

Therefore, sheep is a creature that poses threat to people. (conclusion false ). This argument is
bad argument.

Example 4:

Some Africans are black. (p1-true)

Zelalem is an African. (p2. True)

Therefore, zelalem is black.(con. False). It is bad argument.

How to identify premise from conclusion

1. They are indentified by their indicators.

 Since, because, seeing that, as, as indicated, owing to, given that, for, in that, may
be inferred from, in as much as, for the reason that; are premise indicators.
 Therefore, thus, as the result, entails that, wherefore, accordingly, it must be that, so,
we may conclude, we may infer, hence, consequently, whence, implies that, it
follows that; are conclusion indicators.

Example 1:- conclusion premise indicator

You should avoid any cheating on exams because cheating on exam is

punishable by the senate legislation of the University.

Example 2:- premise

Women are mammals

Zeynaba is woman.
Therefore, zeynaba is mammal.
 “for this reason” indicates both premise and conclusion being between the two.

4
  Sometimes a single indicator may indicate more than one premise.

Example:-

Tsionawit is a faithful wife, for Ethiopian women are faithful wives and Tsionawit an
Ethiopian.

Conclusion premise indicator premise 2

Premise 1

 Sometimes, passage may not have indicator of either premise or conclusion. In

such way, students should identify what is claimed. The main point of the passage
and what is aimed to be proved.
Example:- conclusion (by using indicator like thus etc) P1

Our country should increase the quantity and quality of its military. Ethnic conflicts are
recently intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating (becoming serious); international
terrorist’s activities are increasing.

P3 P2

 In a passage of arguments, statement that is neither premise nor conclusion may

exist. Such statements simply pass comments; but not part of the context of the
argument.

Example:- conclusion indicator of premises p1

Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the overall
quality of medical care available to the average citizen. In addition it might very well
bankrupt the federal treasury. This is the whole case against socialized medicine in a
nutshell.

P2 neither of the two

 There are passages that contain two or more statements but are not argumentative.
Techniques of recognizing arguments
 Claim can be factual or inferential.
 Factual claim= the first situation of the evidence.
 Inferential claim= that follows from the first situation; implication. It can be
implicit or explicit.
 Explicit inferential is asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words.
5
 Example:-
Gemechu is my biological father, because my mother told so.
 An implicit inferential claim exists if there is relationship between the statements
in the passage; but the passage contains no indicator word.
Example:- conclusion
The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic engineering can
introduce unintended changes into the DNA of the food producing organism, and
these changes can be toxic to the consumer.

P2 P1

 Sometimes it is difficult to identify whether a passage contain an argument.

 The mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an
argument; or the existed word does not function as indicator of neither of the two
statements.

Example:-

Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.
( “since” stands for time or “from that time...” instead of being indicator)

But see the following;

Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological
development; (This is argument)

 Inferential relationships between statements cannot be detected easily always.

Therefore, serious reviewing of the passage is must before putting decision. On other
words, it is flow of ideas that shows existence of argument. And passage that does not
contain argument is non-argumentative passage.
Recognizing non-argumentative passage
 Non-argumentative passage lacks inferential claims,
 It lacks statement of premise or conclusion or both,
 It missed reasoning process,
 It has the following types;
 Simple non-inferential passage, expository passage, illustrative passage,
explanations and conditional statements.
1. Simple non-inferential passage
 Lacks claim by which anything is being proved,

6
  It contains premise of one or both types,
 Has no conclusion supported by premise,
 It has type of warning, advice, belief or option, loosely associated statements or
reports.

Example:-

1. “Whatever promise to tell, never confide (discuss) political secrets your wife.” This
warning has no evidence to prove its truthfulness.
2. “After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the subject
matter you have discussed.” This piece of advice is future expression or decision; has
no evidence of proving.
3. “We believe that our University must develop and produce outstanding students who
will perform with great skill and fulfil the demands of our nation. “ (this statement of
believe or opinion has no claim of evidence).
4. “Not to honour men of worth will keep the people from contention; no to value goods
that are hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable
will keep them from unsettled of mind.” (these are loosely combined statements. No
one of these statements are proved by other.)
5. “The great renaissance dam of Ethiopia has opened an employment opportunity for
thousands of Ethiopians. In its completion, thirteen thousand Ethiopians are expected
to be hired.” (This report has information; but lacks implication therefore, not
argument).
6. “Chemical elements as well as compounds can be represented by molecular formula.
Thus, oxygen is represented by O2, water H2O and sodium chloride by NaCl.” (this
illustration is not argument; examples show how it is done. Thus indicates how
something is done).
7. “Cows digest grass while humans cannot because, their digestive systems contain
enzyme not found in human.” (this explanation or expressions of facts, is not
argument).

7
 Conditional statements

It is an “If ------------, then ---------“statement.

Example:-

If you study hard, then you will score “A” grade.

 The “If” clause (antecedent) and the “Then” clause (consequent) are its two
components.
 The “If----, then----“order can be reversed (A—C, C---A). It is when the word “then”
is left out.

Example:-

You will score “A” grade if you study hard.

 Conditional statements are not arguments. Because:-
 It has no present evidence,
 None of the components is true now.
 But some conditional statements are similar to argument in that they express the
outcome of reasoning processes. Or it has certain inferential contents.

Example:-

“If destroying a political competitors gives you joy, then you have a low sense of morality.”
When this statement is re-expressed as follows, it can be argument.

“Destroying a political competitors gives you joy. Therefore, you have a low sense of
morality.” (it is argument).

“If he is selling our national secrets to enemies, then he is a traitor.” –not argument.

“He is selling our national secrets to enemies. Therefore, he is a traitor.” Is argument.

If he is selling our national secrets to enemies, then he is a traitor.

If he is a traitor, then he must be punished by death.

Therefore, if he is selling our national secrets to enemies, then he must be punished by death.

 Single conditional statement cannot be argument.

 Inferential contents of conditional statements should be re-expressed to be argument.
8
  Conditional statements are important in logic as they express the relationship
between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Example:-

Being a dog is sufficient condition for being an animal.

Sufficient condition to animal necessary condition to be dog

 To be animal, being dog is sufficient; but not the only way.

 To be dog, being animal is necessary condition and has no other means. Or,
 Being plant does not bring one to animal. Or,
 If X is a dog, then X is an animal; if X is not animal, then X is not a dog.

Types of arguments

Deductive and Inductive arguments

 It is the certainty or probability of inferring the reason for an argument to be

deductive or inductive.
1. Deductive argument
 Conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty or necessity,
 It is impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises are true.
Example 1:-
All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Socrates is philosopher.
Therefore, Socrates is critical thinker.
2. Inductive argument
 It is improbable for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. or
 It is improbable for the premise to be true and the conclusion false.
 Premises may provide some considerable evidence for conclusion but they do not
imply (necessarily support) the conclusion. There is probabilistic reasoning.
 If premise is true, it is probable for the conclusion to be true.
 Premises support conclusion probably.

Example:-

Most African leaders are blacks.

Mandela was an African leader.

Therefore, probably Mandela was black.

9
Differentiating deductive from inductive

 Existence of indicator words,

 Inferential strengths between them and
 Character or forms of argumentation are ways by which deductive is differentiated
from inductive.
 Certainly,
 Necessarily are used to show existence of deductive arguments.
 Absolutely
 Definitely

 Probable
 Improbable
 Plausible
 Implausible are used to show existence of inductive arguments.
 Likely
 Unlikely
 Reasonable to conclude

“It must be the case that” is ambiguous

“Must” can indicate either probability or necessity.

 But existence of indicator words is not guarantee for existence of deductiveness

or inductiveness. Therefore, there should be other supporting feature.

Example 1:-

All Ethiopian people love their country.

Debebe is an Ethiopian.

Therefore, Debebe loves his country. This is deductive since conclusion follows necessarly
from the premise.

Example2:-

The majority of Ethiopians are poor.

Ahmed is an Ethiopian.

Therefore, Ahmed is poor. This is inductive.

10
Instances of deductive argumentative forms

 Here, premise supposed to provide absolute support for the conclusion. These
forms are the following.
1. Argument based on mathematics:-
 They are arithmetic or geometric computation or measurements.
 Example:- the sum of two odd numbers is even.
 Exception is statistical arguments. Because it is probability.
2. Argument based on definition:-
 Argument given by definition is deductive.
Example:-
Tola is physician; therefore, he is a doctor.
God is omniscient. It follows that he knows everything.
3. Syllogistic arguments are deductive.
 This has two premises and one conclusion.
 It can be given in three ways.
A. Categorical syllogism:-
 It uses quantifiers lie “All, No, Some”

Example:-
All X are Y All goats are mammals;
All Y are Z All mammals are living things
Therefore, all X are Z. Therefore, all goats are living things. (Substitution instance)
B. Hypothetical syllogism:-
 Has conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
 It is “If---, then---“ form

Example:-

If X, then Y

If Y, then Z

Therefore, If X, then Z.

If you study hard you will graduate with distinction;

If you graduate with distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.

Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.
11
 C. Disjunctive syllogism:-
 It uses “Either----, or---“) structure.
Example:-

Either X or Y. Roman is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.

Not X Roman is not Ethiopian.

Therefore, Y Therefore, Roman is Eritrean

Instances of inductive argumentative forms

 Content of conclusion may goes beyond the content of the premise.

 It has the following forms.
1. Prediction about the future;
 Premise is about known event in the past while conclusion moves beyond this event to the
relative future.

Example1:-

Rain will fall within 24hrs because some cloud developed on the centre of highlands. (Cannot
betrue with certainty). It is inductive generalization.

 Discovery of law of nature is inductive while science of known law is deductive.

Example2:-

It has been raining for the whole days of this week; this shows that it will rain for the next
week.

2. Argument from analogy (similarity)

 It argues by similarity in one case. It is non-convincing.
Example:- Computers A and B are manufactured in 2018. Computer A is fast in
processing. Therefore, computer B is fast in processing is probably true.
3. Inductive generalization
 It is generalization of the whole from selective few.

Example 1:-

In rooms of prisoners 3 out of 4 are black. Therefore, ¾ of all the prisoners are black.

Example 2:-

12
There are 100 students taking logic course. Out of these students, 10 were taken randomly
and found to be intelligent. Therefore, this shows that all of these students are intelligent.

These two are statistical arguments.

4. An argument from authority:

 It is by presuming authority or witness from person who lacks experience or knowledge
and ability.

Example:- according to Dr. X who is a medical doctor, Ethiopian economy is increasing

rapidly regardless of the global crises of 2017. Therefore, Ethiopian economy is growing
fast as per the account of Dr. X.

5. Argument based on signs, symbols or caution.

Example:- parking here is possible since there is no sign of “NO parking.”
6. Causal inference (causation)
 It is cause & effect argument; Or from effect to cause.

Example:-

Kebede is upset so that he is silent.( cause to effect)

Summary

 Deductive argument goes from general to particular; but there is exceptional.

Example:-
3 is prime number,
5 is prime number
7 is prime number
Therefore, all odd numbers between 2&8 are prime numbers. (this is particular to
general).
 Inductive argument goes from particular to general; but not all the time.
Example:-
All emeralds previously found have been green. Therefore, the next emerald to be
found will be green.
Evaluating arguments
 The two claims (factual & inferential) are evaluated. But the most important is inferential
claim.
Evaluating Deductive arguments
 It is evaluated by validity, truth & soundness(structural strength)
13
 Deduction & validity
 Conclusion follows with strict necessity from pre.
 True pre. Possible for conclusion to be false ( it can be T/F)= invalid deductive argument.
 To be valid, it is not necessary that either the premise or conclusion to be true; but merely
if the premises assumed true; it is impossible for the conclusion be false. Or actual truth is
not expected.
 Validity is inferential connectivity; the right flow not truth.

Example 1:-

All men are mammals. T

All bulls are men. (Assumption) F

Therefore, all bulls are mammals. T; (followed from pre. With strict necessity).

 Therefore, the argument is valid.

Example 2:-

All philosophers are rational

Cala is rational

Therefore, Cala is philosopher. This does not actually follow from the premise with strict
necessity. Therefore, it is invalid argument.

Validity and truth value

RULE 1. If premises are true and conclusion is true = the argument is Valid or Invalid.

Example-1: (for valid)

All women are mammals (True)

My mother is a woman (True)

Therefore, my mother is a mammal. (True)

Example-2 (for invalid)

All philosophers are critical thinkers. (True)

14
Plato is critical thinker (True)

Therefore, Plato is philosopher (True) (has no inferential linkage)

RULE 2:- If premises are true and conclusion false = the argument is always Invalid.

Example:-

All biologists are scientists. (T)

Abera is Scientist. (T)

Abera is biologist (F) b/c Abera is not necessarily biologist.(has no inferential linkage)

RULE 3:- If Premises are False and Conclusion True = the argument is valid or Invalid.

Example 1 (for Valid)

All birds are mammals (False)

All women are birds (False)

Therefore, all women are mammals. (True)

Example-2:- (for Invalid)

All birds are mammals (True)

All Ostriches are mammals (False)

Therefore, all Ostriches are birds (True) (has no inferential linage with premises)

Rule 4:- If premises are false and conclusion is false = the argument is Valid or Invalid.

Example 1:- (for Valid)

All Americans are Ethiopians (F)

All Egyptians are Americans (F)

Therefore, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (F) (It has inferential linkage)

Example 2:- (for Invalid)

All birds are mammals

15
All ants are mammals

Therefore, all ants are birds. (Conclusion has no direct linkage with premises)

Deduction and soundness

 Sound argument is deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises
 Unsound argument is a deductive argument that is either valid with one or more false
premise or Invalid or both.
 Sound argument = a valid argument + all true premises
 Sound argument is good or convincing argument.

Evaluating Inductive argument

Inductive argument is evaluated or measured by Strength, Truth, and Cogency

Induction and strength

 If premises do in fact support conclusion, it is strong. If not it is weak.

 For strong inductive argument, if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible for
conclusion to be false.

Example 1:- (For strong inductive)

This barrel contains 100 apples where 80 of them are selected at random and found tasty.
Therefore, probably the 100 apples are tasty. (80% is high and strong to make the argument
true). This is cogent inductive argument.

Example 2:- (for weak inductive)

This barrel contains 100 apples where 5 of them are selected at random and found tasty.
Therefore, probably the 100 apples are tasty. (5 % is too weak to make the argument true).
This is cogent inductive argument. (this argument is not cogent)

Induction and Cogency

 Inductive argument is cogent when the argument is strong with all true premises.
 Un cogent inductive argument is that either strong with one or more premises or weak
or both.
 Cogent Inductive argument = is strong argument + all true premises.

Summary

16
 1. Deductive argument

Premise Conclusion Validity

T T V/IV
T F IV
F T V/IV
F F V/IV

2. Inductive argument

Premise Conclusion Strength

T T S/W
T F W
F T S/W
F F S/W

17
 CHAPTER THREE

LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

Uses of language

 Shows emotive language of argument,

 Identify verbal and factual disputes,
 Shows intentional and extensional meanings,
 Shows purpose of definition,
 Shows different defining techniques.

Example:

1. Directive meanings ( commanding)

E.g. Drive carefully please; remember that if you negligently cause damage, you will be
thrown to jail.
2. Cognitive meaning (conveying information)
[Link] first written constitution of Ethiopia is that of 1931.
3. Feelings (evoke emotion)
E.g. Death penalty is the final, cruel and inhuman form of all punishments.
 Emotive statements have both emotive and cognitive meanings.( feeling and
information),
 Emotive sentence has:
 Prejudice expressions
 It is not important in logic as it cannot be evaluated as true or false.
 It is mostly used in military, advertisement and politics.
 Directive functions of language are common in law.
18
 The intension and extension of terms (intentional and extensional meanings of
terms).

Logic needs specific meaning of terms. Terms are words that used as subject of
statements. These may be proper names, common names, and descriptive phrases.

E.g. .Kebede, house, person, those who work hard…

 Any quoted or expressed word is term or subject of statement.

E.g. “Carefully” is an eight letter word.
 Terms have two meanings. These are:
 Intentional and Extensional meanings
1. Intentional meaning
 Has attributes or nature or quality of which the term connotes.
 It avoids subjective applications,
 It avoids similar meanings of things, (avoids over lapping of common areas).
See the different meanings of “abortion”
A. Abortion is an act which is performed by responsible medical professionals so as to
save the endangered life of the mother.
B. Abortion is an act, which is illegal, immoral, inhuman and it clearly violates the
fundamental human rights of an infant baby.

These are two contradictory meaning of abortion. They are subjective and or partial
intentional meaning that differs among persons. Therefore, conventional meaning should
exist to avoid such diversities.

2. Extensional meaning.
 Shows meaning of class that the term denotes,
 Has similar meaning from person to person.
 Intentional meaning of terms is conversely or indirectly related with its extensional
meaning.

Example:

BiologyNatural science sciences. (from specific to general). It is increasing extension and

decreasing intention

Sciences natural sciences biology. (general to specific). It is increasing intension

and decreasing extension.

19
  One may reach on class member from individual
 One may not reach on individual from class.
Definitions and their purposes
 They give meaning of words.
 Definiendum= is defined word
 Definien= defining word.

Defining by purpose are the following:

1. Stipulative definition
 Is definition of newly coined word or for old word.
 It is to substitute more complex by more simple one
 Used for secret codes in military
 Cannot be asserted as true or false (has no truth value)
Ex; logphobia means fear of logic
2. Lexical definition
 Is dictionary definition of words,
 Can be evaluated as true or false
 Avoids ambiguous meanings of words (ex; love, belt etc.)
3. Précising definition
 Reduce vagueness
 appropriate to the context
 applicable to math, law and science
Ex; high means in regard to the interest rate
4. Theoretical definition
 Suggest deductive consequence and further definition to scientific
experimentation. (some)
 Cannot be evaluated as true orfalse

E.g. Atom means, indivisible unit of matter having perceptible quality.

5. Persuasive definition
 Characterized through assigning emotively charged meanings to the
definiendum.
 Can be evaluated as true or false.
E.g. Homeless persons means, a helpless individual who has lost his family
and home as a result of life’s vicissitudes.

20
 Doctor” means, a person possessed of a special God like powers to heal the
sick.
Definitional techniques

It is way(s)of showing intentional and extensional definitions.

A. Demonstrative ( ostensive )definition

 It is extensional definition
 It is primitive form of all definitions
 It is by showing or pointing toward the [Link] is partial or complete listing
of the members.
 Important for persons that don not know the language (non-native)
 It is part of sign language.
E.g. Tree means, this and this
B. Enumerative definition (listing)
 Extensionaldefinition
 Assign meaning to object
 Partial or complete

E.g. Politician means someone as Nelson Mandela, Barak Obama and Robert
Mugabe

C. Definition by sub-class
 It is extensional definition
 Partial or complete
 Produce lexical and stipulate definition
E.g. Fruit means, something such as apple,peach, orange, banana
D. A synonymous definition (similarity)
 It is intentional definition
E.g. “obese” means, fat
Physician means doctor
Observe means see
E. Etymological definition
 Shows root meaning (original or ancestor)
 It is intentional definition
 Shows historical detail of words.
E.g. “Virtue” is a word derived from theLatin word “virtues” which means
strength.
21
 F. An operational definition
 It is through setting of experimental procedures.
 Intentional definition
 Brings abstract concepts to empirical reality
E.g. A knife is “sharp” if it produces a thin scratch when very gently drawn
over one’s thumb nail.
A liquid is “viscous” if one feels resistance when drawing one’s hand through
it.
G. Definition by genus and difference
 Intentional definition
 It is sufficient applicable than any other intentional definitions.
 It is large class definition

E.g. [Link] a three sidedplane figure.

Term difference genus

“Father” means a maleparent

Term

Genus

Difference

Chapter four

Critical thinking

Meaning of Critical Thinking

•Critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently

 Needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.

It helps to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and
present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent
decisions about what to believe and what to do.

22
 Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking
objectively, and thinking independently. Therefore, the aim of critical thinking is to arrive
at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

Standards of Critical Thinking

 Helps to identify a critical thinking from the uncritical, we refer to some standards.
1. Clarity = refers to clear understanding of concepts of others and clearly expressing
them in a language that is free of obscurity and vagueness. When we construct
argument, we should take into consideration or pay close attention to clarity. It may
be difficult as persons cannot completely express themselves.
See the following sentences.

• ‘What can be done about the education system in Ethiopia?’ is not clear.

• ‘What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help
them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?’ is clear.

2. Precision

• Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful.

3. Accuracy - Accuracy is about getting correct information.

4. Relevance

• Relevance is a question of connections of statements. That is, only those points

that bear on the issue should be raised.

5. Consistency:- Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of
having the same opinions or standards. Logic tells us that if a person holds inconsistent
beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false. Inconsistency is by doing and by saying.

6. Logical Correctness:- To think logically is to reason correctly. To think critically, we

need accurate and well supported beliefs.

7. Completeness:- Thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow,

8. Fairness:- Fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of distorting biases and
preconceptions. our thinking could ever be completely free of biases and preconceptions

Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

It is about common principles of a good argument as well as that of a critical thinking.

23
A. Principles of good argument

1) The Structural Principle

Here,
 Reasons should not be contradict,
 Invalid deductive inferences are not needed,
 Good argument should be structurally sound.
 Conclusion either follows necessarily from its premises, in the case of deductive
arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the case of inductive
arguments.

2) The Relevance Principle

 Premises of a good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion
 A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in
favor of, or has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion.
 A premise is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for,
or has no connection to the truth or merit of the conclusion.

3) The Acceptability Principle

 There should be reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and
that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

4) The Sufficiency Principle

 These are reasons sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the
conclusion.
 The problem here is, one’s important reason for one may be trivial for others.

5) The Rebuttal Principle

 One who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the
argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument
that may be brought against it or against the position it supports.
 . An argument cannot be a good one if it does not anticipate and effectively refute or
blunt the force of the most serious criticisms against it and the position that it
supports.
Principles of critical thinking – It is one’s intellectual conduct
24
1. The Fallibility Principle

 Participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact

that he or she is fallible. It is when may be wrong or not the most defensible view
on the matter in dispute.
 One with his/her fallibility, should change his/her mind

2. The Truth Seeking Principle

 Each participant should search for the truth or at least for the most defensible position
on the issue at stake.
 It is not only that we assume, that we may not now have the truth

3. The Clarity Principle

 All the positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic
confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

4. The Burden of Proof Principle

 If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that
position.
 As that, a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who
makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of
proof.(it is by evidences).

5. The Principle of Charity

 It is ethical requirement on one’s participants.

 Even letting our opponents amend any portion of our reconstruction of their
arguments.

6. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

 It happens if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions

seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment
about the issue.
 If suitable evidence is so lacking that one has no good basis for making a decision
either way, it may be quite appropriate to suspend judgment on the matter and wait
until there is more of a basis for decision.

25
 7. The Resolution Principle

 An issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative
positions is a structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that
together provide sufficient grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an
effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it
supports.

Characteristics of Critical Thinking

1. Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers

Critical thinkers:

 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their
limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and
are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment
whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence
reveals error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen
attentively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct,
so they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them,
and thinking before acting.

2. Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers

Uncritical thinkers:

 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their
views are error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the
effort to understand.

26
  Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about
the amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to
pay attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think,
"How can I refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their
established views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

Barriers to Critical Thinking

1) Egocentrism

 Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are

selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to
everyone else’s.

2) Socio-centrism

 It is group-centered thinking.
 Socio-centrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the group.
 Cause group bias and conformism
 It is common for People grow up thinking that their society’s beliefs, institutions, and
values are better than those of other societies.
 Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often
unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief.

3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes

 Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. If the weather report

calls for rain, we take an umbrella because we assume that the meteorologist is not
lying, There may be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser to
take the umbrella than to insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evidence
to justify its prediction.
 You don’t call the professor each day to ask if class is being held; you just assume
that it is.

27
  Stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as hasty generalization, in
which one draws a conclusion about a large class of things (in this case, people)
from a small sample.

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.
 Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion. According to
subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and there is
no such thing as “objective” or “absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of
what anyone believes. For example, suppose Abdella believes that abortion is wrong and
Obang believes that abortion is not always wrong. According to subjectivism, abortion is
always wrong for Abdella and not always wrong for Obang. Both beliefs are true – for
them.
 Cultural relativism is the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion. In other
words, cultural relativism is the view that what is true for person “A” is what person A’s
culture or society believes is true. Drinking wine, for example, is widely considered to
be wrong in Iran but is not generally considered to be wrong in France. According to
cultural relativism, therefore, drinking wine is immoral in Iran but is morally permissible
in France. Thus, for the cultural relativist, just as for the subjectivist, there is no
objective or absolute standard of truth. What is true is whatever most people in a society
or culture believe to be true.

5) 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.
 Reason has done battle with wishful thinking and has usually come out the loser.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

1. Critical thinking skills and Dispositions

 Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and
problems in the community. Teaches you how to gather and assess relevant
information, develop reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against
relevant criterion and standards.
2. Critical Thinking in the Classroom

28
  Students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom
performance. These skills include:
 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others
 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs
3. Critical Thinking in Life
 Critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. It means
non-logical, non-careful and non-clear decisions).
 Critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. Citizens
should vote, should evaluate different public policies, and collectively determine
their fate and et cetera. It is vital, therefore, that citizens’ decisions be as informed
and as rational as possible. Many of today’s most serious societal problems -
environmental destruction, poverty, ethnic conflicts, decaying the morality of
societies, high level of corruption, violating basic human rights, displacement, to
mention just a few - have largely been caused by poor critical thinking.
 Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the
unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society (personal
enrichment it can bring to our lives.)- , people accepted without question that the
earth was the centre of the universe, that demons cause disease that slavery was
just, and that women are inferior to men.

Chapter Five

Logical Reasoning and Fallacies

 Fallacy is error in reasoning or it is defect in the reasoning process of argument.

 Fallacy is of two kinds.
 Formal
 Informal
1. Formal fallacy
 It is defect of form or logical structure of argument.
 It is an explicit invalid deductive argument,
 Premises do not support the conclusion with strict necessity, (T=P, F=C).
 Argument is non-sound/ bad argument

The following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:

All tigers are animals.
All mammals are animals.
29
 Therefore, all tigers are mammals.

This argument has the following form:

All A are B.
All C are B.
-------------------
All A are C.

The argument is invalid. The fact that A, B, and C stand respectively for ‘‘tigers,’’
‘‘animals,’’ and ‘‘mammals’’ is irrelevant in detecting the fallacy. The problem may be
traced to the second premise. If the letters C and B are interchanged, the form becomes valid,
and the original argument, with the same change introduced, also becomes valid (but
unsound).

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

If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.
Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.

This argument has the following form:

If A, then B.
B.
----------------
A.

This type of fallacy is called affirming the consequent. In this case, if A and B are
interchanged in the first premise, the form becomes valid, and the original argument, with the
same change, also becomes valid. In this case, if A and B are interchanged in the first
premise, the form becomes valid.

2. Informal fallacy
 Is problem of content of argument,
 Is none cogent inductive argument,
All factories are plants.
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.

A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one to think that it has the following form:
30
 All A are B.
All B are C.
----------------
All A are C.

Since this form is valid, one might conclude that the argument itself is valid. Yet the
argument is clearly invalid because it has true premises and a false conclusion.

, the argument really has the following invalid form:

All A are B.
All C are D.
------------------
All A are D.

Fallacy of relevance

Fallacy of weak induction

Informal fallacy of presumption

Fallacy fallacy of ambiguity

Fallacy of grammatical analogy

1. Fallacy of relevance= premise is not relevant to conclusion. Or they have emotional

connections.
 There is no logical connection; but seems to have psychological connection. It has
the following branches (types). These are:-
1.1. Appeal to force stick (argumentum ad baculum)= seems child act. Aims to
cause danger if not accepted.
Example, one says to his playmate; “Arsenal is the best football club in the world.
If you do not accept this, I will throw you out.”
1.2. Appeal to pity= is asking mercy, sympathy or excuse or getting pity heart.
Example, An Attorney; “I will realize, there is a good deal of evidence that these
two brothers killed their parents. But now they are orphans. They have no one to
take care of them. They must now face the cruel world. Surely they are not guilty
of this heinous (immoral) crime.”
1.3. Appeal to the people= it is to produce others’ acceptances. Advertisers use it.

31
 1.3.1. Appeal to bandwagon= says “majority choice is right.” Try to make others
to follow the majority.

Example; “sure, this is fantastic gum with lovely flavor. That is why the majority of Addis
people use it.”

1.3.2. Appeal to vanity= following known people’s act to get admiration.

Example; Wear this new fashion shoe! A shoe, which is worn only by few respected
celebrities! ADIDDAS SHOE!!!

The message is that if you wear the shoe, then you, too, will be admired and respected, just
like the famous footballer, Frank Lampard.

1.3.3. Appeal to snobbery= “to be as admired ones, one should use commodity
that the admired use.”

Example: friendship café, no doubt, is the best café in Addis. That is why distinguished
persons like Mohammad Ahmed and Tilahun Gugsa were there on weekends. Come and
enjoy your week ends at friendship café.”

1.4. Argument against person= does not base on idea but on person who raised
the idea.
1.4.1. Fallacy of ad hominem abusive= an argument against the person.

Example; “Ato Gemechu has argued for increased funding for the disabled. But nobody
should listen to his argument. AtoGemechu is a slob (idle) who cheats on his wife, beats his
wife and never pays his bills on time.”

1.4.2. Fallacy of circumstantial (behavior expression). It is not personal attack. It

is discrediting one’s argument.

Example; “Ato Mohammed has just argued that we replace the public school system with
private education. But of course, he argues that way, he has no kid and he does not want to
pay any more taxes for public education.”

1.4.3. Fallacy 0f tu quoqu (you too)

Example 1; “Ato Gemechu has just given us reason why we should place more emphasis on
family values. But he has no business talking. Just a week ago he got divorce.”

32
Examole 2; Doctor, you cannot advise me to quit smoking cigarette because you
yourself is a smoker. How do you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself is
smoking?

1.5. Accident= is applying general rule to specific case. It is wrong application of

general rule to specific instances or situation.
Example; children should obey their parents. Therefore, little Abush should follow his
alcoholic father’s order to drop out of school and get a job.
1.6. Straw man= is fallacy by distorting the argument of opponents to more easily
attack (demolish).
Example; Dr. X has just argued against affirmative action for women. It seems what
he is saying is that women should stay out of the work place altogether. Just keep
them bare foot and pregnant. That is what Dr. X wants. Well, I think we are all smart
enough to reject his argument.
1.7. Missing the point= illustrates a special form of irrelevance. Premises seem
positive with conclusion, but nothing to do with correct conclusion. Conclusion
misses the point.
Example; “Haile G/S has won many cross-country championships. He is still
dedicated, hard worker, disciplined, courageous and determined to win marathon.
Therefore, Ethiopians should save their lives from HIV/AIDS.”
Example2; Wage earners cannot currently live on the minimum wages. Therefore,
minimum wage should be abolished.
1.8. Red herring= is diverting the arguer issue; but the listener or reader do not
know the diversion. It is called “off the struck.”
Example; “AtoShiferaw, a senior official in water resource management, has argued
that clean water act should never be weakened. But the point is that water is one of the
common substances on Earth. 2/3 of our planet’s surface is covered with water and
massive amount of frozen water covers both poles. If the ice caps were ever to melt,
ocean level would rise several feet. Obviously, the official has been miss-informed.”
2. Fallacy of weak induction= is weak connection between premise and conclusion. It is
insufficient or probable support of premise to conclusion. It has six sub-braches.
2.1. Appeal to unqualified authority= is asking information from person of
untrustworthy, or inexpert.
Example 1; Omer who is a well-known astronomer, says that ‘AIDS epidemic is
caused by a perverse (wrong) alignment of the planets, and that there is nothing any

33
 one can do about it. Therefore, we can only conclude that all of these efforts to find a
cure for AIDS are waste of time.’

Example 2; The famous of artists, artist Woriku said that “Vera Pasta is the most nutritious
food. So Vera pasta must be the most nutritious food.” But the artist is not an expert of food,

2.2. Appeal to ignorance= is b/cof lack of evidence or proof of something is used

to support the conclusion. (Nothing is proved about something). Something is
true/false b/c no one has proved its truth or falsity
Example; nobody has ever-proved the existence of ghost. Therefore, we have no
alternative but to conclude that a ghost is mere idea of the imagination.
2.3. Hasty generalization= is opposite of accident. It is conclusion based on
insufficient evidence or by non-representing sample.
2.4. False cause fallacy= no sufficient evidence connect statement of premise with
conclusion.
2.4.1. Post hoc ergo proter hoc fallacy= is “after this, therefore on account of
this.”Claiming one thing as cause of another b/c it precedes in time.
Example; X is caused by Y b/c X came after Y.
2.4.2. Non causa pro causa fallacy= arguing something as the cause of something,
but not in reality.
Example; there are religious institutions today than ever before, .and more
HIV/AIDS today than ever before. So, to eliminate the epidemic we must
abolish the religious institutions.
2.4.3. Over simplified cause fallacy= .considering only one from the varieties of
causes. Or it insufficient cause.
Example; why most students fail in their exams is because teachers do not
come to class regularly.
2.5. Slippery slope fallacy= there are series of events but not convincing for the
occurrence. It says, “This happens b/c of this, and this happen because of this.”
2.6. Fallacy of weak analogy(similarity)= similarity is not strong for conclusion
to be drawn.
Example; “no one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. Therefore, why
should anyone be expected to get marriage without premarital sex?
3. Fallacy of presumption= it has four sub-branches.
3.1. Begging the question

34
 Example, we can be certain that this photo is of emperor Tewdros b/c the person in
the photo looks just like him.
3.2. Complex question= is a question of diverse answers.
Example; “have you stooped involving in such crime?”
If “yes”, one was doing crime in the past. If “No”, still one is doing crime.
3.3. False dichotomy= is false bifurcation or division in to two. “Either--- or ---“
is false dilemma fallacy. Only two alternatives are taken as means and effect.
Example; Either we elect the EPRDF, or the country’s fate will be worsened.
Therefore, the choice is obvious.
3.4. The suppressed evidence= drawing of weak conclusion than the fit or best
one.
Example; Addis Ababa University deserves to be one of the best universities in Africa
as it has impressive buildings, beautiful gates and attractive fountain.
4. Fallacy of ambiguity= it is of two types.
4.1. Equivocation= word of argument has two possible meanings or connotations.
Conclusion is not supported by its premises.
Example; some triangles are obtuse. Whatever is, obtuse is ignorant. Therefore, some
triangles are ignorant.
4.2. Amphiboly= is misinterpretation of ambiguous arguments.
Example; Beza said that she painted her pictures hanging on the wall of her bed room.
Obviously, Beza is an acrobat.
5. Fallacy of grammatical analogy= it is of two types.
5.1. Composition= is erroneous transference of an attribute (behaviour).Example=
each atom in this table is invisible to the necked eye. Therefore, the table is invisible
to the necked eye. (This goes from part to whole). Butit is not always fallacious.
5.2. Division= is opposite of composition. It is from whole to part. Example; ‘CO’
is a poisonous gas. Therefore, its two components, carbon and oxygen must be
poisonous.

35
 Chapter six

Categorical propositions and syllogism

 The term proposition refers to the information content or meaning of a statement.

 We can use the terms statement and proposition interchangeably for this purpose.
 Categorical propositions are that relate two classes of things based on the rule of
exclusion or inclusion principles.

Standard-Forms of Categorical Proposition

 CP =Quantifier + subject term + copula + predicate term.

EXAMPLE; All members of the Ethiopian Medical Association are people holding degrees
from recognized academic institutions. This standard-form categorical proposition is
analyzed as follows:

Quantifier: all

Subject term: members of the Ethiopian Medical Association

Copula: are

Predicate term: people holding degrees from recognized academic institutions.

Its substitution instance is: All S are P. A categorical proposition is in standard form if and
only if it is a substitution instance of one of the following four forms:

36
Given the subject and predicate terms and its four components, categorical propositions could
be stated in standard form symbolically -as follows.

All S are P = All members of S are in P class.

No S are P = No member of S is in P class.
Some S are P = At least one member of S is in P class.
Some S are not P = At least one member of S is not in P class.
Example: Some businesses are not profitable.
Quantifier: Some. Subject term: businesses. Copula: are not. Predicate term:
Profitable. Its substitute is: Some S are not P
Attributes of Categorical Propositions are: Quality, Quantity, and Distribution
Proposition Meaning in class notation
All S are P. Every member of the S class is a member of the P class;
that is, the S class is included in the P class.
No S are P. No member of the S class is a member of the P class; that is, the S
class is excluded from the P class.
Some S are P. At least one member of the S class is a member of the P class.
Some S are not P. At least one member of the S class is not a member of the P
class.
These are the three fundamental concepts that would help us to deal with the
properties of the four standard forms of categorical statement.

Letter Standard form Quality Quantity Distribution

Name
A All S are P Affirmative Universal S
E No S are P Negative Universal S&P
I Some S are P Affirmative Particular None
O Some S are not P Negative Particular P
Letters of standards, quality, quantity and distribution
Representing Categorical Propositions in Diagrams
In such a diagram:
• The two categories (set of things) stated in the subject and predicate terms are
represented by two overlapping circles.
• The shading part of the diagram depicts that there no member of the class
exists; that is it is null or empty.
• The “*” or simply “X” shows that there is at least one member of the class
exists.
37
 Study the following Venn diagrams.
1. Proposition A= All S are P

[Link] Marxists are revolutionary. The shaded part does not represent the
proposition All S are P, hence it is empty

2. Proposition E = No S are P
Ex. No Marxists are revolutionary
The shaded part shows that the intersection area is empty. For the proposition
“No S are P” no middle ground exists, hence the intersection area consists no
member of S and P

3. Proposition I = Some S are P

Ex. Some Marxists are revolutionary
The “X” sign depicts that there is at least one member of the class of S which
exists in the class of P.
4. Proposition O = Some S are not P

Ex. Some marxists are not revolutionary.

The “X” sign is found outside the “P” circle, depicting that at least one member of S
is not found in P class.

Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition

 Conversion
Conversion-the rule of conversion emphasizes the change of the position of the subject to the
predicate and vice versa.

Letter Name Given Proposition New statement by conversion

38
 A All S are P All P are S
E No S are P No P are S
I Some S are P Some P are S
O Some S are not P Some P are not S

 Obversion . Change the quality without changing its quantity. Change

the predicate by its term complement. A term which has opposite meaning against the
meaning of a given term is called term complement. A term complement for black is white,
and for the term Ethiopians is non-Ethiopians or those that are not Ethiopians.

Letter Name Given Proposition New StatementBy Obversion

A All S are P No S are non-P

E No S are P All S are non-P

I Some S are P Some S are not non-P

O Some S are not P Some S are non –P

39
  Contraposition
According to the rule of contraposition, we have to change the position of the subject to the
predicate and vice versa; and, we should to replace the predicates and the subject terms by
their term complements.
Study the following table.

Latter Name Given Proposition New statement by

Contraposition
A All S are P All non-S are non-P
E No S are P No non- S are non-P
I Some S are P Some non- S are non –P
O Some S are not P Some non –S are not no –P

40