_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 What is Logic?
1.1.1 A Branch of Philosophy
What is Philosophy?
The word "philosophy" is derived from the Greek words and word-fragments:
 Philia/ phile /philo—love of, affinity for, liking of

 Sophia/ sophos / sophist wisdom

And this means love of wisdom.

Philosophy is the systematic inquiry into the principles and presuppositions
of any field of study.

The Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the

questions asked in each area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be
rigidly maintained, for one area overlaps into the others.

1. Ontology or Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. Metaphysics

deals with the so-called first principles of the natural order and "the ultimate
generalizations available to the human intellect." Specifically, ontology seeks
to identify establish the relationships between the categories, if any, of the
types of existent things.

What kinds of things exist? Do only particular things exist or do general

things also exist? How is existence possible? Questions as to identity and
change of objects—are you the same person you were as a baby? As of
yesterday? As of a moment ago?

How do ideas exist if they have no size, shape, or color? (My idea of the
Empire State Building is quite as "small" or as "large" as my idea of a book.
I.e., an idea is not extended in space.) What is space? What is time?

1
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

E.g., consider the truths of mathematics: in what manner do geometric

figures exist? Are points, lines, or planes real or not? Of what are they made?

What is spirit? or soul? or matter? space? Are they made up of the same sort
of "stuff"?

When, if ever, are events necessary? Under what conditions are they
possible?

2. Epistemology: the study of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the

study of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge. Epistemology
investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge. There
are schools of thought in Epistemology in relation to sources of knowledge.
These are rationalism, empiricism, and Kantian tradition. The proponents of
rationalism claimed that the source of knowledge is reason. While proponents
of empiricisms argued that sense organs or experience are sources of
human knowledge. And Kantian approach is an alternative in order to
reconcile rationalism, and empiricisms. For Kant both reason and sense
organs are the source of human knowledge.

3. Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and
metaphysical status. More often than not, the term "value theory" is used
instead of "axiology" in contemporary discussions even though the term
“theory of value” is used with respect to the value or price of goods and
services in economics.

Some significant questions in axiology include the following:

Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a

behavioral disposition, or simply a human interest of some kind?

Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum (i.e., (“there's no

accounting for tastes”) or do objective standards apply?

2
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What ultimate
worth, if any, do human values have?

4. Ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral

problems: e.g., (1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of
things which are good or desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy
or praiseworthy.

5. Æsthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings,
judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is
concerned with judgments of sense, taste, and emotion.

E.g., Is art an intellectual or representational activity? What would the

realistic representations in pop art represent? Does art represent sensible
objects or ideal objects?

Is artistic value objective? Is it merely coincidental that many forms in

architecture and painting seem to illustrate mathematical principles? Are
there standards of taste? Is there a clear distinction between art and reality?

6. Logic is a branch of philosophy that deals with arguments.Logic is also

the science that evaluates arguments.This means that logic aims at criticizing
the arguments of others and constructing arguments of our own.

1.1.3 Brief on History of Logic

Aristotle (384-322 B.C) is the father of logic. His logic is called syllogistic logic.
The major logician of the middle age was Peter Abelard (1079-1142). He was
a French philosopher and he refined Aristotle’s logic and originated a theory
of universals

The Oxford philosopher William Occam (C.1285-1349) also contributed to

the concept of Modal logic (involves possibilities such as possibility,
necessity, belief and doubt) and meta language.

3
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

G. W Leibniz (1646-1716) introduced symbolic logic, which later developed

by A. De Morgan, George Boole, W.S.Jevons .
The British Philosopher J. S. Mill (1806-1873) initiated the revival of
inductive logic.
Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) founded modern Mathematical logic
Most recently logic has made a major contribution to technology by
providing a conceptual foundation for the electronic circuitry of digital
computers.
In the above we discussed that Logic is the science that evaluates
argument. Now we proceed to examine what mean by argument.
1.2 The Nature of Arguments
1.2.1 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).
Example:
Man is mortal.
Professor Yilma is man.
Therefore, Professor Yilma is mortal.
Based on the logical relation between the premises and the conclusion
arguments may be said good or bad.
1.2.2. Components of Argument
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)
 Statements in an argument contain one or more premises and only one
conclusion.
 Premises are statements that set forth the reasons or evidence for the
conclusion. Premises are evidence in given arguments that purport the
arguer to provide conclusion.

4
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support or

imply. In other words, it is what follows from the evidence or premises.
Simply conclusion seems to be the concluding idea in given statement
in relation to its premises.
 Premises and conclusions may be identified in arguments from their
indicators.
Argument= premises+conclusion
 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 therefore, even though,
generally and etc.
 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. By using indicter words in argument once
would distinguish conclusion from premises.
In given argument there would be one or more premise but one
conclusion.
1.3 Recognizing Arguments
A passage may contain arguments if it purports to prove something, and
not otherwise.
A passage which purports to prove something is only the one that fulfills
the following two claims:
1.3.1 Factual & Inferential Claim
1. Factual Claim: at least one of the statements must claim to present
evidence or reasons. (This mainly refers premises)
2. Inferential Claim: there must be a claim that something follows from the
alleged evidence. (This mainly refers the logical relationship between
premises and the conclusion)
The inferential claim may be explicit or implicit.
Explicit inferential claims are asserted by the premise or conclusion
indicator words.

5
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Implicit inferential claims exist if there is an inferential relationship between

the statements in a passage but there are no indicator words.
Example:
The price reduction [seen with electronic calculator] is the result of a
technological revolution. The calculator of 1960s used integrated electronic
circuit that contained bout a dozed transistors or similar components on a
single chip. Today, mass production chips, only a few millimeters square
contain several thousand such components. (Boikess and Edelson, in Hurley)
To decide whether a passage contains an argument, we should look for three
things:
1. Indicator words
2. The presence of inferential relationship between the statements and
3. The factual claims

1.3.2 Typical kinds of Non-arguments

A. warning is a form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard
against a dangerous or detrimental situation. Examples:
Watch out that you don’t slip on the ice.
Whatever you do, never confide personal secrets to Blabbermouth Bob.
If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, then there is no
argument.
B. Piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation
about some future decision or course of conduct. Examples:
You should keep a few things in mind before buying a used car. Test drive the
car at varying speeds and conditions, examine the oil in the crankcase, ask to
see service records, and, if possible, have the engine and power train checked
by a mechanic.
Before accepting a job after class hours, I would suggest that you give careful
consideration to your course load. Will you have sufficient time to prepare for

6
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

classes and tests, and will the job produce an excessive drain on your
energies?
As with warnings, if there is no evidence that is intended to prove anything,
then there is no argument.
C. Conditional statements the reason is the antecedent and the consequent
show a causal connection; not inferential relationship.
Example:
If Alemu studies hard, (antecedent) he will pass the exam. (consequence)
Note that:
A single conditional statement is not an argument.
A conditional statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion
(or both) of an argument.
Example:
If Alemu studies hard, he will pass the exam.
Alemu really studies hard.
Therefore, Alemu will pass the exam.
The inferential content of a conditional statement may be re-expressed to
form an argument.
D. Explanations
The reason is statements in explanations intend to shed light on some
accepted facts; but not they use accepted facts as a claim to prove a
conclusion.
Just as arguments have premises and conclusions, so do explanations
have explanans and explanandum.
Explanandum: is the statement that is to be explained.
Explanans: is the statement or group of statements that purports to do
the explaining. As both express the outcome of a reasoning process,
explanations and arguments have certain similarities, however,
explanations do not claim to prove anything.
Many [particularly, scientific] explanations can be re-expressed to form
arguments.

7
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Example: (Hurley: 22-23)

The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun
are scattered by particles in the atmosphere. (Explanation)
Light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere.
Therefore, the sky appears blue from the earth’s surface. (Argument)
Some passages may be interpreted as either explanations or Arguments or
both.
Example: (Hurley: 23)
Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men,
because men metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream,
whereas women do not.
Some indicators have a twofold meaning.
E. An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is
intended to show what something means or how it is done. Illustrations are
often confused with arguments because many illustrations contain indicator
words such as “thus.” Examples:
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.”
A deciduous tree is any tree that loses its leaves during the winter. For example,
maples are deciduous. And so are elms, poplars, hawthorns, and alders.
These selections are not arguments, because they make no claim that anything
is being proved. In the first selection, the word “thus” indicates how something
is done— namely, how chemical elements and compounds can be represented
by formulas. In the second, the examples cited are intended to illustrate the
meaning of the word “deciduous.”
It pins down the meaning by providing concrete instances.
However, as with expository passages, many illustrations can be taken as
arguments.
1.4 Types of Arguments

8
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Based on the strengths of an arguments inferential claim arguments are divided

in to deductive and inductive.
1.4.1. Deductive Argument
In deductive arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily or
absolutely from the premises. A deductive argument is an argument in which
if the premises are assumed to be true, and it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false. If the premises are true necessarily the conclusion also true.
Example:
All Ethiopian farmers used advanced technology.
Mekonnen was an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Mekonnen used advanced technology.
1.4.2. Inductive Argument
In these arguments the conclusion is claimed to follow only probably from the
premises. It is an argument in which if the premises are assumed to be true,
then based on that assumption it is improbable that the conclusion is false.
Unlike deductive argument, in case of inductive argument it is improbable
that the premises are true and the conclusion to be true somehow it would be
false.
Example:
Many Africans daily income were low.
William was an African.
So, William daily income is low.
An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be
strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would
be unlikely that the conclusion is false. So, an inductive argument's success
or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. There is
no standard term for a successful inductive argument, but this article uses
the term "strong." Inductive arguments that are not strong are said to
be weak. An inductive argument can be affected by acquiring new premises
(evidence), but a deductive argument cannot be.
1.4.3. Three Factors to decide arguments as deductive or inductive

9
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Special indicator words

Deductive indicators:
Necessarily, certainly absolutely, definitely
Inductive indicators
Probably, improbable, plausible, likely, unlikely and reasonably to conclude
2. The actual strength of inferential claim
3. Form of Arguments
Typically Deductive Arguments:
 Arguments based on Mathematics
 Argument from definition
 Categorical Syllogism (Contains words All, No, some)
 Hypothetical syllogism (if-then)
 Disjunctive syllogism (either-or)
Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the
premises are supposed to provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five
examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation are arguments based on
mathematics, arguments from definition, and categorical, hypothetical, and
disjunctive syllogisms.
An argument based on mathematics is an argument in which the conclusion
depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement.
For example, a shopper might place two apples and three oranges into a
paper bag and then conclude that the bag contains five pieces of fruit. Or a
surveyor might measure a square piece of land and, after determining that it
is 100 feet on each side, conclude that it contains 10,000 square feet. Since
all arguments in pure mathematics are deductive, we can usually consider
arguments that depend on mathematics to be deductive as well.
However, arguments that depend on statistics are a noteworthy exception. As
we will see shortly, such arguments are usually best interpreted as inductive.
An argument from definition is an argument in which the conclusion is
claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used in

10
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the premise or conclusion. For example, someone might argue that because
Claudia is mendacious, it follows that she tells lies, or that because a certain
paragraph is prolix, it follows that it is excessively wordy. These arguments
are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity from the
definitions of “mendacious” and “prolix.”
A syllogism, in general, is an argument consisting of exactly two premises
and one conclusion. Categorical syllogisms will be treated in greater depth in
Chapter 5, but for now we will say that a categorical syllogism is a syllogism
in which each statement begins with one of the words “all,” “no,” or “some.”
Example:
All ancient forests are sources of wonder.
Some ancient forests are targets of the timber industry.
Therefore, some sources of wonder are targets of the timber industry.
Arguments such as these are nearly always best treated as deductive.
A hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional (“if . . . then”)
statement for one or both of its premises. Examples:
If estate taxes are abolished, then wealth will accumulate disproportionately.
If wealth accumulates disproportionately, then democracy will be threatened.
Therefore, if estate taxes are abolished, then democracy will be threatened.
If Fox News is a propaganda machine, then it misleads its viewers.
Fox News is a propaganda machine.
Therefore, Fox News misleads its viewers.
Later in this book, the first of these arguments will be given the more specific
name of pure hypothetical syllogism because it is composed exclusively of
conditional (hypothetical) statements. The second argument is called a mixed
hypothetical syllogism because only one of its component statements is a
conditional. Later in this book, the second argument will be given the more
specific Latin name modus ponens.
A disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive (“either . . .
or . . .”) statement.
Example:

11
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Either global warming will be arrested, or hurricanes will become more

intense.
Global warming will not be arrested.
Therefore, hurricanes will become more intense. As with hypothetical
syllogisms, such arguments are usually best taken as deductive.
Hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms will be treated in greater depth in
Chapter 6.

Typically Inductive Arguments

 Prediction
 Argument from Analogy
 Arguments in geometry)
 Inductive Generalization
 Argument from Authority
 Argument based on signs
 A causal inference
N.B. Argument from science can be either inductive or deductive, depending
on the circumstances.
N.B. Traditional conception of Deductive and inductive arguments that
involves proceedings from particular to general and vice versa is not
acceptable for modern logicians.

In general, inductive arguments are such that the content of the conclusion
is in some way intended to “go beyond” the content of the premises. The
premises of such an argument typically deal with some subject that is
relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a subject
that is less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may
take any of several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from
analogy, inductive generalizations, arguments from authority, arguments
based on signs, and causal inferences, to name just a few.

12
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A prediction is an argument that proceeds from our knowledge of the past

to a claim about the future. For example, someone might argue that
because certain meteorological phenomena have been observed to develop
over a certain region of central Missouri, a storm will occur there in six
hours. Or again, one might argue that because certain fluctuations
occurred in the prime interest rate on Friday, the value of the dollar will
decrease against foreign currencies on Monday. Nearly everyone realizes
that the future cannot be known with certainty; thus, whenever an
argument makes a prediction about the future, one is usually justified in
considering the argument inductive.
An argument from analogy is an argument that depends on the existence
of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or states of affairs. Because
of the existence of this analogy, a certain condition that affects the better-
known thing or situation is concluded to affect the similar, lesser-known
thing or situation. For example, someone might argue that because
Christina’s Porsche is a great-handling car, it follows that
Angela’s Porsche must also be a great-handling car. The argument depends
on the existence of a similarity, or analogy, between the two cars. The
certitude attending such an inference is probabilistic at best.
A generalization is an argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a
selected sample to some claim about the whole group. Because the
members of the sample have a certain characteristic, it is argued that all
the members of the group have that same characteristic. For example, one
might argue that because three oranges selected from a certain crate were
especially tasty and juicy, all the oranges from that crate are especially
tasty and juicy. Or again, one might argue that because six out of a total of
nine members sampled from a certain labor union intend to vote for
Johnson for union president, two-thirds of the entire membership intend to
vote for Johnson. These examples illustrate the use of statistics in inductive
argumentation.

13
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An argument from authority is an argument that concludes something is

true because a presumed expert or witness has said that it is. For example,
a person might argue that earnings for Hewlett-Packard Corporation will be
up in the coming quarter because of a statement to that effect by an
investment counselor. Or a lawyer might argue that Mack the Knife
committed the murder because an eyewitness testified to that effect under
oath. Because the investment counselor and the eyewitness could be either
mistaken or lying, such arguments are essentially probabilistic.
An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds from the
knowledge of a sign to a claim about the thing or situation that the sign
symbolizes. The word “sign,” as it is used here, means any kind of message
(usually visual) produced by an intelligent being. For example, when driving
on an unfamiliar highway one might see a sign.
1.5. Evaluating Arguments
Based on the factual and inferential claims of the arguments obviously once
would examine the types of arguments. In other words 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)
1.4.1 Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Deductive arguments will be evaluated for;
1. Validity
2. Truthfulness
3. Soundness
4. Unsound
The concept of deductive validity can be given alternative definitions to help
you grasp the concept. Below are four different definitions of the same
concept. It is common to drop the word deductive from the term deductively
valid:

14
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. An argument is valid if the premises can’t all be true without the

conclusion also being true.
2. An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises forces the
conclusion to be true.
3. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows with certainty from its
premises.
4. An argument is valid if it has no counter example, that is, a possible
situation that makes all the premises true and the conclusion false.
1. Validity Vs Invalidity

Validity is about whether premises support the conclusion.

There is no middle ground between valid and invalid arguments.
A. Valid Deductive Argument
It is the one in which the conclusion follows from the premises with necessity
or certainty.
It is an argument in such that if the premises are assumed true, it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false.
An argument can be valid regardless of the fact that the [content of the]
premises are false (because truth or falsity is irrelevant for validity. Here is
an example:
All television networks are media companies.
NBC is a television network.
Therefore, NBC is a media company.
In this argument both premises are actually true, so it is easy to assume that
they are true. Next we determine, in light of this assumption, if it is possible
for the conclusion to be false. Clearly this is not possible. If NBC is included
in the group of television networks (second premise) and if the group of
television networks is included in the group of media companies (first
premise), it necessarily follows that NBC is included in the group of media
companies (conclusion). In other words, assuming the premises to be true
and the conclusion false entails a strict contradiction. Thus, the argument is
valid. Here is another example

15
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All automakers are computer manufacturers.

United Airlines is an automaker.
Therefore, United Airlines is a computer
manufacturer.
In this argument, both premises are actually false, but it is easy to assume
that they are true. Every automaker could have a corporate division that
manufactures computers.
Also, in addition to flying airplanes, United Airlines could make cars. Next, in
light of these assumptions, we determine if it is possible for the conclusion to
be false.
Again, we see that this is not possible, by the same reasoning as the previous
example

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. In these arguments the conclusion does not
follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to. It
is an argument having true premises and a false conclusion
Example:
All cats are animals. True
Dogs are animals. True
Therefore, dogs are cats. False
The truth and falsity of premises and conclusion is irrelevant to the question
of validity except in one case: (Have true premises and a false conclusion),
which is invalid. The reason is an argument with false premise and false
conclusion could be valid. Similarly, an argument with true premise and true
conclusion could be invalid
Example:
All fruits are apples. False
Potato is a fruit. False
Therefore, potato is an apple. False

16
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(But it is Valid)
Similarly, an argument with true premise and true conclusion could be
invalid.
Example:
All Soft drinks are non-alcoholics. T
Coca-Cola is non-alcoholic. T
Therefore, Coca-Cola is soft drink. T
But it is invalid
3. Sound and Unsound Arguments
Truth and Falsity is relevant to evaluate arguments as Sound and Unsound.
Sound Deductive Arguments
A sound deductive argument is an argument that is valid and has all true
premises. The only case of a Sound Deductive argument is true premises and
true conclusions.
Unsound Deductive Arguments
Regardless of their truth or falsity all invalid deductive arguments are
Unsound.
Summary
The relationship among Truthfulness, validity and soundness is summarized
as follows.
Pre. Con. Validity Soundness
T T ? ?
T F Invalid Unsound
F T ? Unsound
F F ? Unsound

N.B The question mark (?) in the table indicates that based on the factual
and/or the inferential claim the argument could be valid, invalid, sound or
unsound.
N.B The case: True Premise & False Conclusion is impossible; if it happened,
the argument is necessarily invalid.

1.4.2 Evaluating Inductive Arguments

17
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To evaluate an inductive argument one has to answer the following two

Questions.
1. Do premises support the Conclusion?
2. Are all the premises true?
Inductive arguments will be evaluated for
1. Strength
2. Weak
3. Cogent
4. uncogent
1. Strong and weak arguments:
Strength is the feature of inductive arguments. Strength of an inductive
argument is determined by the degree of probability for the conclusion to
come out from the premises. The probability may be determined by various
factors.
Example: The selection of a larger or smaller sample, the trustworthiness of
the authorities or witnesses etc.

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.
Example:
Famine had been occurring in every decade for the last several consecutive
decades in Ethiopia. T
Therefore, probably there will be famine in Ethiopia in the next decade.
(Probably True)
If we assume the premises are true, it is probable for the above conclusion to
be true. Indeed, the above premise is actually true. Therefore, it is a Strong
Inductive Argument.
Every previous U.S. president was older than 40.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be older than 40.
Also it seemed to be strong inductive argument.

18
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.
Example:
The dreams that Miss Debre repeatedly dreams sometimes occur directly.
(True)
Miss. Debre dreamt that there will be a government change. (True)
Therefore, probably there will be a government change. (Probably False)
If we assume the premises are true, it is NOT probable for the above
conclusion to be true for it has the least probability (for her dreams occur
directly only occasionally). Therefore, it is a Weak Inductive Argument.
Truth and falsity are irrelevant in evaluating arguments as strong or weak. The
reason is inductive argument having false premise and a probably false
conclusion could be strong.
Example:
All previous Soccer world cups were won by the Ethiopian team. (False)
Therefore, probably the next world cup will be won by the Ethiopian team.
(ProbablyFalse)
If we assume the premises are true, it is probable for the above conclusion to
be true. Therefore, this is a Strong Inductive Argument. Similarly an inductive
argument having true premise and a probably true conclusion could be weak.
Example:
A few Ethiopian leaders were warriors. (True)
Therefore, probably the next Ethiopian leader will be a man.(Probably
True)
In fact both the premises and the conclusion is true, however the above
argument is weak for the conclusion do not probably come from the premise.
This barrel contains 100 apples.
Three apples selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.
This barrel contains 100 apples.

19
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eighty apples selected at random were found to be ripe.

Therefore, probably all 100 apples are ripe.
The first argument is weak and the second is strong. However, the first is not
absolutely weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be
strengthened or weakened by the random selection of a larger or smaller
sample. For example, if the size of the sample in the second argument were
reduced to seventy apples, the argument would be weakened. The
incorporation of additional premises into an inductive argument will also
generally tend to strengthen or weaken it. For example, if the premise “One
unripe apple that had been found earlier was removed” were added to either
argument, the argument would be weakened.
2. Cogent and Uncogent Arguments

A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true
premises. Also, the premises must be true in the sense of meeting the total
evidence requirement. If any one of these conditions is missing, the argument
is uncogent. Thus, an uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is
weak, has one or more false premises, fails to meet the total evidence
requirement, or any combination of these. A cogent argument is the inductive
analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a good, or
successful, inductive argument without qualification. Because the conclusion
of a cogent argument is genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that
the conclusion of every cogent argument is probably true in the actual world
in light of all the known evidence.
A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true
premises. Argument is cogent if and only if it is inductively strong and all the
premises are true. Uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is weak,
and has one or more false premise, or both.
A few U.S. presidents were unmarried.
Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be unmarried.
Every previous U.S. president died in office.

20
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will die in office.The above two
mentioned examples are uncogent inductive argument.

21