Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil.

101)

Chapter Two
Basic Concepts of Logic
2.1. Definitions and Concepts of Logic
What is the Meaning of Logic?
The word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence, discourse, reason, truth and rule.
Logic can be defined in the following ways:
 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.
 Logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments. More precisely, logic is the study of
methods for evaluating whether the premises of arguments adequately support or provide a
good evidence for the conclusions.
 Logic is a science that helps to develop the method and principles that we may use as a
criterion for evaluating the arguments of others and as a guide to construct good arguments of
our own.
 LOGIC is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians explore the structure
of arguments that preserve truth or allow the optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence.
 Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries. The precision of logic
helps them to cope with the subtlety of philosophical problems and the often misleading
nature of conversational language.
What is the Benefit of Studying Logic?
“Logic sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think, reason and argue.” (C. S. Layman)
The following are some of the major benefits that we can gain from the study of logic:
 It helps us to develop the skill needed to construct sound (good) and fallacy-free arguments of
one’s own and to evaluate the arguments of others;
 It provides a fundamental defense against the prejudiced and uncivilized attitudes that threaten
the foundation of a civilized and democratic society;
 It helps us to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common logical errors in reasoning;
 It helps us to understand and identify the common confusions that often happen due to misuse of
language;
 It enables us to disclose ill-conceived policies in the political sphere, to be careful of disguises,
and to distinguish the rational from irrational and the sane from the insane and so on.
What is an Argument?
Argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premise/s) are claimed to provide support
for, or reason to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion).
Features of an Argument
First, an argument is a group of statements. That is, the first requirement for a passage to be qualified as
an argument is to combine two or more statements. But, what is a statement? A statement is a declarative
sentence that has a truth-value of either true or false. That is, statement is a sentence that has truth-value.
Hence, truth and falsity are the two possible truth-values of a statement. A statement is typically a
declarative sentence. In other words, statement is a type of sentence that could stand as a declarative
sentence. Look the following examples:
a) Dr. Abiy Ahmed is the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.
b) Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region.
c) Ethiopia was colonized by Germany.

Page 1
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are, or assert what really is the case.
Hence, ‘Truth’ is their truth-value. Whereas statement (c) is false because it asserts what is not, and
‘Falsity’ is its truth-value.
However, there are sentences that are not statements, and hence should be used to construct an argument.
Examples:
a) Would you close the window? (Question)
b) Let us study together. (Proposal)
c) Right on! (Exclamation)
d) I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)
e) Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)
Second, the statements that make up an argument are divided into premise/s (a statement that set forth
the reason or evidence, which is given for accepting the conclusion of an argument) and conclusion (the
claim that an argument is trying to establish). An argument is a group of statements, which contains at
least one premise and one and only one conclusion.
Examples of an Argument
Example-1: Example-2:
1) All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1) 2) Some Africans are black. (Premise-1)
Almaz is Ethiopian. (Premise2) Tolera is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Almaz is African. (Conclusion) Therefore, Tolera is black. (Conclusion)
The first is good (well-supported) argument, because the premises really do support the conclusion or
they give good reason for believing that the conclusion is true. The second is bad (poorly-supported)
arguments, because the premises fail to support the conclusion adequately.
How can we distinguish premises from conclusion and vice versa?
The first technique that can be used to identify premises from a conclusion and vice versa is looking at
an indicator word.
Here below are some Conclusion Indicators:
Therefore We may conclude Thus So
Wherefore Entails that Consequently It follows that
Accordingly Hence We may infer
Provided that It shows that It implies that
It must be that Whence As a result

Example:
Women are mammals.
Fatuma is a woman.
Therefore, Fatuma is a mammal.
Here below are some typical Premise Indicators:
Since For
As indicated by In that
Because May be inferred from
Owing to Inasmuch as
Seeing that For the reason that
Given that
As

Page 2
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Example:
You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams is punishable by the Senate
Legislation of the University.
One premise indicator not included in the above list is ‘‘for this reason.’’ The statement that comes
before ‘‘for this reason’’ is the premise of an argument and the statement that comes after “for this
reason” is the conclusion. Example:
Simbo is a faithful wife, for Ethiopian women are faithful wives and Simbo is an Ethiopian.
The premise indicator ‘‘for’’ goes with both ‘‘Ethiopian women are faithful wives’’ and ‘‘Simbo is an
Ethiopian”. These are the premises. By process of elimination, ‘‘Simbo is a faithful wife” is the
conclusion.
Sometimes you may come across an argument that contains no indicator all: neither a conclusion
indicator word nor a premise indicator word. When this occurs, the reader/ listener must ask himself or
herself such questions as:
 What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others?
 What is the arguer trying to prove?
 What is the main point in the passage?
The answers to these questions should point to the conclusion.
Example:
Our country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. Ethnic conflicts are recently
intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating; international terrorist activities are increasing.
The main point of this argument is to show that the country should increase the size and quality of its
military. All the rest are given in support of the conclusion. As you can see there are no indicator words.
The following is the standard form of this argument:
Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
International terrorist activities are increasing. (P-3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. (C)
Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusion.
Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be included in the list of
premises. If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for example, simply makes a passing
comment, it should not be included within the context of the argument. Example:
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.
The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Socialized medicine is not recommended,’’ and the two statements
following the word ‘‘because’’ are the premises. The last statement makes only a passing comment about
the argument itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion.
What is Inference?
It is the reasoning process expressed by the argument. And broadly it refers the argument itself. For the
purpose of this course, we use the narrower sense of the term inference or inferential link between the
premises and the conclusion of arguments.

2.2. Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

Page 3
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

2.2.1. Recognizing Argumentative Passages

Since logic deals with arguments, it is important for students to develop the ability to identify whether
passages contain an argument. A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it
does not do so, it does not contain an argument.
But what does it mean to purport to prove something?
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:
1) At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons (factual claim).
2) There must be a claim that the alleged evidence or reasons supports or implies something- that
is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence (inferential claim).
An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit inferential claim is usually
asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words (‘‘thus,’’ ‘‘since,’’ ‘‘because,’’ ‘‘hence,’’
‘‘therefore,’’ and so on).
Example: Gemechu is my biological father, because my mother told so.
An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship between the statements in a
passage, but the passage contains no indicator words.
Example:
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.
The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two constitutes an implicit claim that
evidence supports something, so we are justified in calling the passage an argument though it does not
contain indicator word. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are the premises.
The mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means guarantees the presence of an argument. The
presence of an indicator word does not mean that the existing indicator word actually and always indicate
a premises or a conclusions. Thus, before deciding that an indicator word indicates a premises or a
conclusion, make sure that the existing indicator word is used to indicate a premise or a conclusion.
Example:
Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been many technological developments.
Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit for a major technological development.
In the first statement the word ‘‘since’’ is used in a temporal sense. It means ‘‘from the time that.’’ Thus,
it is not an argument. In the second one ‘‘since’’ is used in a logical sense, and so the passage is an
argument.
It is not always easy to detect the occurrences of an inferential relationship between statements in a
passage, and the reader may have to review a passage several times before making a decision. Therefore,
in deciding whether a passage contains an argument one should try to insert mentally some indicators
words among the statements to see whether there is a flow of ideas among the statements.
2.2.2. Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages
Non-argumentative passages are passages, which lack an inferential claim. These include simple non-
inferential passages, expository passages, illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements. Passages
that lack an inferential claim may be statements, which could be premises, conclusion, or both. What is
missed is a claim that a reasoning process is being made.
Simple Non-inferential Passages
Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosely
associated statements, and reports.

Page 4
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

A warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous or
detrimental situation.
Example: Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to your wife.
A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision or
course of conduct.
Example: After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the subject matter you
have discussed.
A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone happens to believe or think about
something.
Example: We believe that our university must develop and produce outstanding students who will
perform with great skill and fulfill the demands of our nation.
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject, but they lack a claim that one of
them is proved by the others.
Example: Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value goods that are
hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display what is desirable will keep them from being
unsettled of mind. (Lao-Tzu, Thoughts from the Tao Te Ching)
A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about some topic or event.
Example: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.

Expository Passages
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more
sentences that develop the topic sentence.
Example: There is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the sports, especially in baseball.
Each player develops a style of his own-the swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique windup a pitcher
has, the clean-swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness and grace of infield and outfield,
the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done. (Max Lerner, America as a Civilization)

Illustrations
An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what something
means or how it is done.
Example: Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus,
oxygen is represented by “O2”, water by “H2O”, and sodium chloride by “NaCl”.
However, as with expository passages, many illustrations can be taken as arguments. Such arguments are
often called arguments from example. Here is an instance of one:
Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life-threatening. For
example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it
almost never results in death.
In this passage, the example given is intended to prove the truth of “Not all cancers are life-threatening.”
Thus, the passage is best interpreted as an argument.

Explanations
An explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon, which is
usually accepted as a matter of fact. It attempts to clarify, or describe such alike why something happen in
a certain way or why something is what it is.

Page 5
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Example: Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems contain enzyme not
found in humans.
Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum and explanans. The
explanandum is the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained, and the
explanans is the statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining. In the first example,
the explanandum is the statement “Cows digest grass while humans cannot” and the explanans is “their
[cows’] digestive systems contain enzyme not found in humans.”
Argument Explanation
Accepted fact
Premise Explanans
Claimed to prove Claimed to shed light on
Accepted fact
Conclusion
Explanations
Conditional Statements
A conditional statement is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.
Example: If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’ grade.
Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The component statement
immediately following the “if” is called the antecedent (if-clause), and the one following the “then” is
called the consequent (then-clause). In the above example the antecedent and consequent is reversed:
You will score ‘A’ grade if you study hard. In the above example, the antecedent is “You study hard,” and
the consequent is “You will score ‘A’ grade.”

Conditional Statements:
Antecedent Consequent

If ---------------------------- then ---------------------------------.

Consequent Antecedent

---------------------------- if ---------------------------------.

The relation between conditional statements and arguments may now be summarized as follows:
1) A single conditional statement is not an argument.
2) A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument.
3) The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to form an argument.
Conditional statements are especially important in logic (and many other fields) because they express the
relationship between necessary and sufficient conditions. A is said to be a sufficient condition for B
whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence of B. For example, being a dog is a
sufficient condition for being an animal. On the other hand, B is said to be a necessary condition for A
whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence of B. Thus, being an animal is a necessary condition for
being a dog.

Page 6
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Note: A is a sufficient condition for B; if A occurs, then B must occur.

A is a necessary condition for B; if B occur, then A must occur.

In general, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument, you should look for three things:
1) indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on;
2) an inferential relationship between the statements; and
3) typical kinds of non-arguments.
2.3. Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction
2.3.1. Deductive Arguments
A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to
be false given that the premises are true. It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support
the conclusion in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Example:
All philosophers are critical thinkers
Socrates is a philosopher
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.
2.3.2. Inductive Arguments
An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable for the conclusion to
be false given that the premises are true. . It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support
the conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Example: 3) The character or form of argumentation
Most African leaders are blacks. the arguers use.
Mandela was an African leader.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black.
2.3.3. Differentiating Deductive and
Inductive Arguments
The distinction between inductive and deductive
arguments lies in the strength of an argument’s
inferential claim. In other words, the distinction
lies on how strongly the conclusion is claimed to
follow from the premises, or how strongly the
premises are claimed to support the conclusion.
There are three factors that influence the
decision about the deductiveness or
inductiveness of an argument’s inferential claim.
These are:

1) The occurrence of special indicator

words,
2) The actual strength of the inferential
link between premises and conclusion,
and

Page 7
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms

Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the premises are supposed to
provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five forms or kinds of argumentation are arguments based on
mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms: categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive
syllogisms.
Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the conclusions depend on some purely
arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement. For example, you can put two orange and three
bananas in a bag and conclude that the bag contains five fruits.
Arguments based on definition: it is an argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely up
on the definition of some words or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. For example, one may
argue that Angel is honest; it follows that Angel tells the truth. Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a
doctor.
Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion. Syllogisms can be
categorized into three groups; categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.
Categorical syllogism: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion.
Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in which the statement begins with one of the words “all”, “no” and
“some”.
Example:

All Egyptians are Muslims.

No Muslim is a Christian.
Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.

Hypothetical syllogism: It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
Example:
If you study hard, then 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.
Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an “either … or” statement.)
Example:
Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.

Instances of Inductive Argumentative Forms

Forms of inductive argument include: predictions about the future, arguments from analogy, inductive
generalizations, arguments from authority, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences.
Prediction: in a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the present or the past and the
conclusions moves beyond this event to some event to relative future. For example, one may argue that
because certain clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall within twenty-four hours.
An argument from analogy: It is an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy or similarity
between two things or state of affairs. Because of the existence of this analogy a certain conditions that
affects the better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less familiar , lesser known-thing or

Compiled by Taye B. (Lecturer of Philosophy @ Mettu University, Department of Civics and Ethical
Studies). Page 8
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

situation. For instance, one may conclude, after observing the similarity of some features of Computer A
and car B: that both are manufactured in 2012; that both are easy to access; that Computer A is fast in
processing; it follows that Computer B is also fast in processing.
An inductive generalization: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to
some claim about the whole group. For example, one may argue that because three out of four people in
a single prison are black, one may conclude that three-fourth of prison populations are blacks.
An argument from authority: it is an argument in which the conclusions rest upon a statement made by
some presumed authority or witness. A lawyer, for instance, may argue that the person is guilty because
an eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath.
Arguments based on sign: it is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a certain sign to the
knowledge of a thing or situation that the sign symbolizes. For instance, one may infer that after
observing ‘No Parking’ sign posted on the side of a road, the area is not allowed for parking.
A causal inference: it is an argument which proceeds from the knowledge of a cause to the knowledge of
an effect, or conversely, from the knowledge of an effect to knowledge of a cause. For example, from the
knowledge that a bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone might
conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting a piece of chicken and finding it dry
and tough, one might conclude that it had been overcooked (effect to cause).
2.4. Evaluating Arguments
2.4.1. Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity, Truth, and Soundness
Deduction and Validity
A valid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is impossible for
the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises. Conversely, an invalid deductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are
assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments, the conclusion does not
follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to. Consider the following
examples:
Example-1: Example-2:
All men are mammals. All philosophers are rational.
All bulls are men. Socrates was rational.
Therefore, all bulls are mammals. Therefore, Socrates was a philosopher.

The first example is valid argument, because the conclusion actually followed from the premises with a
strict necessity. If all men are assumed as mammals and bulls as men, then it is impossible for bulls not be
mammals. Hence, the argument is valid. The second example is invalid argument, because the conclusion
did not actually follow from the premises with a strict necessity, even though it is claimed to. That is,
even if we assume that all philosophers rational and Socrates is rational, it is not actually impossible for
Socrates not to be a philosopher.

There are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of a given
argument:
1) True premises and True conclusion,
2) True premises and False conclusion,
3) False premises and True conclusion, and
4) False premises and False conclusion.
Compiled by Taye B. (Lecturer of Philosophy @ Mettu University, Department of Civics and Ethical
Studies). Page 9
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Note that all of the above possibilities, except the second case (true premises and false conclusion), allow
for both valid and invalid arguments. That is, the second case does not allow for valid arguments, because
any argument having this combination is necessarily invalid. Let us discuss these possibilities in detail
with examples.

Validity and Truth Value

Possibility # 1: A combination of True premises and True conclusion (the first case) allows for both valid
and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example-1 (Valid):
All women are mammals. (Tp)
My mother is a mammal. (Tp)
Therefore, my mother is a woman. (Tc)
Example-2 (Invalid):
All philosophers are critical thinkers (Tp)
Plato was a critical thinker (Tp)
Therefore, Plato was a philosopher (Tc).
Possibility # 2: A combination of True premises and false conclusion (the second case) allows only for
invalid arguments. Consider the following example:
Example (Invalid):
All biologists are scientists. (Tp)
John Nash was a scientist. (Tp)
Therefore, John Nash was a biologist. (Fc)
Possibility # 3: A combination of False premises and True conclusion (the third case) allows for both
valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):
All birds are mammals. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All women are birds. (Fp) All ostriches are mammals. (Fp)
Therefore, all women are mammals. (Tc) Therefore, all ostriches are birds. (Tc)

Possibility # 4: A combination of False premises and False conclusion (the fourth case) allows for both
valid and invalid arguments. Consider the following examples:
Example-1 (Valid): Example-2 (Invalid):

All Americans are Ethiopians. (Fp) All birds are mammals. (Fp)
All Egyptians are Americans. (Fp) All ants are mammals. (Fp)
Thus, all Egyptians are Ethiopians. (Fc) Therefore, all ants are birds. (Fc)

Compiled by Taye B. (Lecturer of Philosophy @ Mettu University, Department of Civics and Ethical
Studies). Page 10
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

The relationship between the validity of a deductive argument and the truth and falsity of its premises and
conclusions summarized as follows.

Table 1.1

Premises Conclusion Validity

True True Valid/invalid
True False Invalid
False True Valid/invalid
False False Valid/invalid
Deduction and Soundness
A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. An unsound
argument is a deductive argument that is either valid with one or more false premises, or invalid, or both.

Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true premises

2.4.2. Evaluating Inductive Augments: Strength, Truth, and Cogency

Induction and Strength

A strong inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is improbable
for the conclusion to be false. In such arguments, the conclusion follows probably from the premises.
Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an argument such that if the premises are assumed true, it is
probable for the conclusions to be false. Consider the following examples:

Compiled by Taye B. (Lecturer of Philosophy @ Mettu University, Department of Civics and Ethical
Studies). Page 11
 Handout for the Course Logic and Critical Thinking (Phil. 101)

Example-1:
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Eighty apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
Example-2:
This barrel contains one hundred apples.
Three apples selected at random were found tasty.
Therefore, probably all one hundred apples are tasty.
The first example is strong argument, because the conclusion actually follows probably from the
premises. The second example is weak argument, because the conclusion does not actually follow
probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.

Strength and Truth Value

To be considered strong, an inductive argument must have a conclusion that is more probable than
improbable. In inductive arguments, there is neither absolutely strong nor absolutely weak argument.
To test an argument for strength, what we need to do is to assume the premise true and then to see
whether the conclusion follows more/less probably from the premise. Thus, the strength or weakness of
an inductive argument results not from the actual truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion, but from
the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion.
We have said earlier that there are four possibilities with respect to the truth or falsity of the premises and
conclusion of a given argument: True premises and True conclusion, True premises and False
conclusion, False premises and True conclusion, and False premises and False conclusion.
The relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the truth and falsity of its premises
and conclusions summarized as follows.
Premises Conclusion Strength
True True Strong/Weak
True False Weak
False True Strong/Weak
False False Strong/Weak
Induction and Cogency
A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. An uncogent
argument is an inductive argument that is either strong with one or more false premises, or weak, or both.

Cogent Argument = A strong argument + All true premises

Compiled by Taye B. (Lecturer of Philosophy @ Mettu University, Department of Civics and Ethical
Studies). Page 12