The document provides an introduction to philosophy, covering its branches such as metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, ethics, aesthetics, and social/political philosophy. It emphasizes the importance of logic in reasoning and argumentation, explaining deductive and inductive arguments with examples. Additionally, it details methods for evaluating arguments and discusses various forms of argumentation.

1. Addis Ababa University
Department of Philosophy
Habiba Nuredine

2. Chapter One
Logic and Philosophy

3. Introduction to Philosophy
 Philosophy is a broad and diverse field of
study that seeks to explore fundamental
questions about the nature of reality,
knowledge, ethics, and the meaning of
life.
 It is a discipline that uses critical thinking,
logical reasoning, and careful analysis to
examine these fundamental questions.
 The word "philosophy" originates from the
Greek terms "philo," which means "love,"
and "sophia," which means "wisdom."

4. Branches of Philosophy
A. Metaphysics
 Metaphysics delves into questions about the nature
of reality.
 It explores concepts such as existence, identity, time,
causality, and the relationship between mind and
body. Metaphysics also examines broader questions,
including the existence of God and the nature of free
will.
B Epistemology
 Epistemology is concerned with the nature of
knowledge.
 It investigates how we acquire knowledge, the criteria
for justified belief, and the limits of human
understanding. Epistemology also explores the nature
of truth and the relationship between belief and
evidence.

5. Source of knowledge:
 Empiricism (Sense experience as a source
of knowledge). Eg, Hume, and Lock.
 Rationalism (Reason as source of
knowledge). Eg, Plato, Descartes

6. C. Axiology
Axiology is the study or theory of value. The
term Axiology stems from two Greek words-
Axios, meaning value, worth‖, and logos
meaning reason.
 Hence, Axiology is the philosophical study of
value
Axiology asks the philosophical questions:
 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 How do we know what is valuable?
 What is the relationship between values and
knowledge?
 What kinds of values exist
 Axiology deals with three areas, namely
 Ethics,
 Aesthetics, and
 Social/Political Philosophy

7. Ethics, and Aesthetics
Ethics
 Ethics deals with questions of morality and
how we ought to live.
 It explores theories of right and wrong, good
and evil, and the nature of ethical decision-
making.
 Ethics examines various ethical frameworks,
such as consequentialism, deontology, and
virtue ethics, and so forth.
Example
Suppose a doctor has five patients who need
organ transplants in order to survive. There are
no donors available, but there is a healthy
person in the waiting room who has come in
for a routine check-up.
inherently wrong.
 However, according to consequentialist
ethics, it would be acceptable to kill the
healthy person if it would result in saving
the lives of the five patients.
Aesthetics
 Aesthetics focuses on questions of beauty,
art, and the nature of aesthetic experience.
 It examines the nature of art, the criteria for
artistic judgment, and the relationship
between aesthetics and perception.
 Aesthetics also explores the role of art in
society and its impact on human emotions
and values.

8. Social/Political Philosophy
Social/Political Philosophy
 Social/Political Philosophy studies about of
the value judgments operating in a civil
society, be it social or political.
 Social/Political Philosophy primarily deal
with:
What form of government is best?
What economic system is best?
What is justice/injustice?
What makes an action just/unjust /
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher
who lived from 1588 to 1679. He is best known
for his political philosophy.
 Hobbes’s political philosophy is chiefly
concerned with the way in which government
must be organized in order to avoid civil war.
 Hobbes believed that the state of nature is
characterized by the “war of every man
against every man,” a constant and violent
condition of competition in which each
individual has a natural right to everything,
regardless of the interests of others.
 Existence in the state of nature is, as Hobbes
famously states, “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.” The only laws that exist
in the state of nature (the laws of nature).

9.  In the absence of a higher authority to
adjudicate disputes, everyone fears and
mistrusts everyone else, and there can be no
justice, commerce, or culture.
 That unsustainable condition comes to an
end when individuals agree in a social
contract to relinquish their natural rights to
everything and to transfer their self-
sovereignty to a higher civil authority, or
Leviathan.
 The only laws that exist in the state of
nature (the laws of nature) are not covenants
forged between people but principles based
on self-preservation.
Hobbes’s laws of nature
 Hobbes’s laws of nature are based on the
Right of Nature, which is the idea that self-
preservation is of the utmost importance.
 The fundamental (or first) law is to seek
peace, if it is achievable.
 The second is to be willing to sacrifice some
things in order to achieve peace.

10. Logic
Logic
 Logic is the study of valid reasoning and
argumentation.
 It provides us with tools to analyze and evaluate
arguments for their soundness and validity.
 Logic helps us identify fallacies, construct
cogent arguments, and think critically.

11. Chapter II (Two)
Basic Concepts of Logic

12. Logic:
•is a branch of philosophy that deals with arguments, principles and method of
right reasoning.
•is the science that evaluates arguments
• it help us to create our own arguments, criticizing and evaluate the arguments of
others as well.
The Nature of Arguments
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).

13.  The premises are statements that
set forth the reasons or evidence
for the conclusion.
 The conclusion is the statement
that the evidence is claimed to
support or imply.
Examples:
1. Man is mortal. Premises
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Conclusion
2. Majority of Europeans are white
Mandela is an European
So, Mandela is white.
 3. All footballer are Black
Biden is a footballer
Hence, Biden is Black
 4. 90% of aliens have five eyes
John is an alien
Thus, John has four eyes.
 5. Crimes are violation of the law
Theft is a crime
It follows that, theft is a violation of
the law.

14. Conclusion Indicators
Therefore, we may conclude, Hence. Accordingly, Thus,
Consequently, We may infer, etc.
Premise Indicators
Since, As indicated by, Because, For, As, Owing to, in as much as,
etc.
Example:
1. Expectant mother should never use recreational drug, since
the use of this drug can jeopardies the development of the
fetus.
2. I am a biologist owing to I studied about life.

15. Recognizing arguments
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to contain an argument:
That is a factual and inferential claim.
Factual claim is all about the truth value of the statement,
Inferential claim, on the other hand, is all about the logical
connection between the premises and the conclusion, and it asks the
question like:
Do all premises support the conclusion?
Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

16. Example:
1. Man is Dog
Abebe is a man
Hence, Abebe is a dog
2. Since all Indians are Asians and Mr. David
an Indian. It follows that, Mr. David is the
prime Minister of India.
Inferential claims: Explicit Inferential
Claims
Implicit Inferential
 is an argument and usually asserted by
either premises or conclusions indicator
words.
B. Implicit Inferential claims
 Is an arguments but without premise and
conclusion indicator words. This enlighten
us that there are argument with out premise
and conclusion indicators.
 And presence of premise and conclusion
indicators doesn’t guarantee the occurrence

17. Examples:
1. Selam is a university student, since she attends her class at 6 kilo main campus.
2. Alemaz is an intelligent student. She always passed from class to class, and she got
gold medals in educational competitions.
3. All Living Organisms have genetic material in the form of DNA. Mouse are living
organisms. Hence, Mouse have DNA.
4. UFOs have a high intelligence capacity. Numerous Credible eyewitness, videos,
scientific discoveries depict UFOs exhibiting high intelligence capabilities beyond

18. Deductive and Inductive arguments
Deductive Argument
 A deductive argument is an argument that is
all about necessity, which means that if the
first two premises are assumed to be true
(not factual), then there is no way that the
conclusion would be false.
 Or if the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
 So a Deductive argument is all about
necessity.
Inductive argument
 Inductive argument: is all about
probabilities. If the premise is assumed to
be true, then it is improbable that the
conclusion of an argument could be false.
 And Inductive arguments are assertions that
use specific premises or observations to
make a broader generalization.

19. Examples:
1. All African footballers are black
Messi is an African footballer
Therefore, Messi is black
2. Majority of Ethiopian peoples are poor
Alamudin in an Ethiopian
It follows that, Alamudin is poor
3. Both God and Evil could not exist together
Evil Exists. Thus, God doesn’t Exist
3. All Ethiopian previous leaders were men.
Hence, the next Ethiopian leader will be a
men.
4. Philosophers are critical thinker
R. Descartes was a philosopher
Hence, Descartes is a critical thinker
5. All the pandas that I saw while traveling in
China are black; therefore, all pandas are
black.

20. Exercise
1. All mammals are warm-blooded. Elephants are
mammals. Therefore,
 (a) Elephants are warm-blooded.
 (b) Elephants are cold-blooded.
 (c) Elephants are neither warm-blooded nor cold-
blooded.
 D. None
2. A survey of 100 students revealed that 80% of them
own a smartphone. Based on this information, what
can be inferred?
 (a) All students own a smartphone.
 (b) Most students own a smartphone.
 (c) Some students own a smartphone.
 (d). None of the students have a smartphone
4. Every time I eat peanuts, I get a headache.
Therefore, I must be allergic to peanuts.
 What type of reasoning is this?
 A) Deductive C) Neither
 B) Inductive D) Both
5. If it rains, then the ground will be wet. It is raining.
Therefore, the ground is wet. What type of reasoning is
this?
 A) Deductive B) Inductive D) Both
6. All cars run on gasoline. The vehicle in front of me
is a car. Conclusion?
 (a) The vehicle in front of me runs on gasoline.
 (b) The vehicle in front of me runs on electricity.
 (c) The vehicle in front of me runs on diesel.

21. 7. All triangles have three sides. The shape X has three sides.
Conclusion:
(a) Shape X is a triangle.
(b) Shape X has four sides.
(c) Shape X has two sides.
8. Every time I press the "on" button, the computer boots up. Based on this
observation, what is a reasonable inference?
(a) All computers boot up when the "on" button is pressed.
(b) Some computers boot up when the "on" button is pressed.
(c) No computers boot up when the "on" button is pressed.

22. 6. All mammals have lungs.
A whale is a mammal.
Therefore, a whale has lungs.
This conclusion is derived from
applying general principles (premises) to a
specific case (whale) using logical rules.
7. Every time I drop an object, it falls to
the ground.
All objects fall to the ground when
dropped.
This conclusion is based on the
repeated observation of individual
instances and generalizing the pattern to
all objects.

23. The Three factors
1. Indicator words
 Deductive indicator words: necessarily absolutely and certainly
 Inductive indicator words: Probably, improbable, likely,
unlikely, plausible, and implausible.
2. Strength of the inferential Claim
3. Forms of Argumentation:
 Deductive forms of argumentations
 Inductive forms of argumentations

24. Deductive Forms of Argumentation
 1.Argument from mathematics: is a
deductive argument, and the conclusion
follow from some geometric measurement.
Or any mathematical reasoning is entitled to
be deductive argument.
 2. Argument from definition: is a
deductive argument and the conclusion
follow from the definition of the word that is
being used in the premises.
 3.Categorical syllogism: Syllogism
means having two premise and one
having to premise and one conclusions and
each statement begin with one of the word
All, Some and NO.
 4.Hypothetical syllogism: is a deductive
argument that has conditional statements
with other statements proving the
conditional statements.
 5. Disjunctive syllogism: is a deductive
argument that having disjunctive statements
or either or statements.

25. Inductive Forms Argumentation
 1. Argument from Analogy: is an inductive
argument, and the conclusion depends on
the similarity between two things or state of
affairs.
 2.Arguments from generalization: Or
concluding from a specific case or specific
observation to generalization is entitled
"inductive or, more specifically, argument
from generalization.“
 3. Argument based on authority: is an
inductive argument and the conclusion
depends on presumed authority or witness.
 4. Argument based on Sign: is an inductive
argument that proceed from sign to things.
 5. Causal Inferences: Proceed from cause to
effects

26. Evaluation
of An
Arguments

27. Evaluation of Deductive Argument
 Deductive argument can evaluated by its validity invalidity, sound and
unsound.
 Valid argument: is a deductive argument in which the conclusion follow
with strict necessity from the premises. And valid argument is also about
the appropriate form or structure of an argument.
 Invalid argument on the other hand the conclusion doesn’t follow with
strict necessity from the conclusion because of its inappropriate form or
structure of an argument.
Sound (Means Having True statements/Premises)
Unsound (Means Having False statements/premises)
Valid (Could be either sound or unsound)

28. Evaluation
of
Inductive
Argument

29. Evaluation of Inductive Arguments
Inductive argument can be evaluated by its strongness, weakness cogent
and Uncogent.
Strong argument: in an inductive argument and the conclusion follow
with the high probability from the given evidence.
Weak argument is an inductive argument and the conclusion follow
with low probability from the given premises.
Cogent (Means having True statements/ premise)
Uncogent (Means having False statements/ premises)
Strong argument could be either cogent or Uncogent
Weak argument are always Uncogent

30. Conclusion
Deductive:
Valid: sound
or unsound
Invalid
(always
unsound
Inductive
Strong:
Either
Cogent or
Uncogent
Weak: Always
Uncogent

31. Examples (Evaluation)
1. All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Plato is a philosopher.
Hence, Plato is a critical thinker.
2. All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Plato is a critical thinker.
Therefore, Plato is a philosopher.
3. All previous American presidents were men. It follows that the next
American president will be a man.

32. Examples
4. A few German presidents were women. It follows that the next
German president will be a woman.
5. Since ‘‘Dertogada’’ is written by Hadith Alemayew, and
‘‘Dertogada’’ is about a war hero novel. It follows that Hadith
Alemayew wrote a war-hero novel.
6. Abebe is a heart surgeon at Yekatit Hospital. He says that many
heart failures are caused by anxiety. Therefore, in the view of Dr.
Abebe, anxieties are the major cause of heart failure.

33. Examples
7. If Menelik was defeated at Adwa, then Ethiopiawould be colonized by
Italy.
Ethiopia was colonized by Italy.
Hence, Emperor Menelik was defeated at Adwa.
8. The Liverpool football club had been defeated consistently for the past
match weeks. Therefore, it is very likely that the team will win today’s
match against MUT Football Club.
9. All Leaders are politicians.
Some Politicians are racist.
Hence, some politicians are racist.

34. Examples
 10. After hearing Joe Biden's speech about
the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance in the
council, Mr. Demeke Mekonnen (The current
Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs) rolled
his eyes and shake his head. Apparently, Mr.
Demeke Mekonnen didn’t agree with what
Biden said.
 11. J.F.K.M. Library has the shape of a
pentagon. It follows that, it has four sides.
of them is the winning ticket. John bought
90 lottery tickets, therefore, John will win the
lottery.
 13. All humans have DNA, Pat is a human.
Thus, pat has DNA.
 14. All democrats always tell the truth,
president J. Biden is a democrat. Hence,
Biden always tells the truth.

35. Examples
12. Either it's raining outside or the sun is shining.
It's not raining outside.
Therefore, the sun is shining.
13. The Ethiopian national football team hasn’t qualified for the
World Cup so far. Thus, it won’t qualify for the next World Cup.
14. Abebe is a student from Addis Ababa University with deep
religious values. Thus, Roza, who is also from Addis Ababa
University, has deep religious values.

36. Chapter Three
Logic and Language

37. Language
What is Language?
What is the connection between Logic and Language?

38. Logic and Language
Function of Language:
Emotive
Cognitive
A. Emotive (Expressive) Function
 Emotive or expressive function of language is a function of language which is important for
individual to express their feeling or emotions.
 This function of language, enables individuals to express their positive or negative feelings,
emotions, like and dislike and so forth
Examples:
 I love Abebe.
 I hate David
 She is beautiful

39. Logic and Language
• Note: Because of the very reason that emotive function
obliges individuals to provide subjective, partial, irrational
and unfair judgment based on their emotions or feelings
about something, this function of language is not relevant
for the science that evaluates argument-logic.

40. B. Cognitive (Informative) Function
B. Cognitive (Informative) Function
 Cognitive or informative function of language is used to describe about the world and its
inhabitants.
 Cognitive function enables individuals to deny or affirm the truth of different propositions or
statements,
 cognitive statements can be evaluated as true or false. Therefore, they can serve as premises or
conclusions of different arguments.
Examples:
 WWI started in 1918
 Ethiopian is found in East Africa

41. The Intension and Extension of Terms
Types of meanings:
 Intentional meaning
 Extensional meaning.
A. Intentional meaning
 Intentional meaning, which is also called connotative meaning.
 consists of the qualities, properties, features, attributes or essential characteristics
that the term connotes.
B. Extensional meaning
 Extensional meaning which is also called denotative meaning
 Refers to the members of the class that the term denotes.

42. Examples:
1. Scientist
2. Scientist a person such as
Order of Intension and Extension
 Increasing Intension: Animal,
 Decreasing Intension:
 Increasing Extension:
 Decreasing Extension:

43. Definitions and Their Purposes
Definition’ is a group of words that assigns a meaning to some words or group of
words.
There are two important technical parts in every definition:
 Definiendum: Is a Latin term and it refers to the word or group of words that is being
defined.
 Definiens” is the word or a group of words that does the defining .
Example:
Philosophy is rational and critical enterprise that tries to formulate answer for
fundamental question through intensive application of reason.

44. Kinds of Definition
1. A Stipulative Definition
 It provides meaning to a new term for the first time.
 This may be done through either creating a new word or giving a
new meaning to an old word.
 The purpose of a stipulative definition is usually to replace a
complex expression by a simple expression.
Examples:
 “Operation Barbarosa” means the name the Germans gave to the
invasion of Russia.
 “Operation Desert storm” means the code name given to the military

45. Lexical Definitions
2. Lexical Definitions
 Dictionary definitions are instances of lexical definition. In contrast to
stipulative definitions, lexical definitions may be true or false
 The purpose of a lexical definition is to eliminate ambiguity that would
arise over the use of different words.
Examples:
 “bank”, “right” are subject to ambiguity . The term “Bank”, for
example, can mean a financial institution or the slope bordering
river,” right” can mean freedom, liberty or correct; and so forth.

46. Précising Definitions
3. Précising Definitions
 It provides a more precise, specific, exact and restricting meaning to a
term. The purpose of this definition is to avoid or reduce the vagueness
of a word.
 For example words such as happiness, love, rich, poor, bald, are vague.
This is because it is difficult to tell whether these words apply to
specific situations or not. These words lack attributes like exactness and
preciseness.
Example: For example, the definition “poor” means having a daily income

47. Theoretical Definition
4. Theoretical Definitions
 A theoretical definition provides a theoretical meaning to different terms or words
based on the context of broader intellectual framework.
 For example
“Heat” means the energy associated with the random motion of the molecules of a
substance.
 But all theoretical definitions are not associated with science. many philosophical terms
such as “substance”, “form”, “cause”, “change”, “idea”, “good”, “mind”, “justice” and so
forth which have been given theoretical definition by different philosophers.
 The purpose of a theoretical definition is to avoid disagreements over the use of
different terms by providing theoretically adequate and reliable description of the
entities which are designated by different terms or words.

48. Persuasive Definition
5. Persuasive Definition
 A persuasive definition assigns meaning to different terms using emotively
charged words or phrases to create a favorable or unfavorable attitude.
 writers or the speakers use different emotively charged words to influence,
change, or persuade others.
 The purpose of persuasive definition, is to persuade listeners or readers over
a certain issue.
Example:
 “Abortion’ means the ruthless murdering of innocent human beings”.
 “Abortion” means a safe and establishes surgical procedure whereby a

49. Definitional Techniques
Definitional Techniques
Extensional (Denotative) Definitions
Intentional (Connotative) Definitions
Extensional definition
 Assigns a meaning to a term by indicating
the members of the class that the
definiendum denotes.
 Have four kinds of definitions
A. Demonstrative (ostensive)
definitions
 Such a definition is the meaning of
pointing.
 Such definitions may be either partial or
complete
Examples:
 Wall means this, this and this
 ‘‘J.F. Kennedy memorial
Library’’ means that—as you
point to it.

50. B. Enumerative definitions
 Assign a meaning to a term by naming the members of the class the term denotes.
 Like demonstrative definitions, they may also be either partial or complete.
Examples:
 President means a leaders such as J. Biden, Rishi Sonak, T. Erdogan, V. Putin, K. Jong, etc
 University means a place where students are expected to get a degree such as Oxford,
Harvard, A.A.U, etc
C. A definition by subclass
 Assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the class denoted by the term.
 Such a definition, may be either partial or complete
Example:
 Fictional work’’ means either a poem, a play, a novel, or a short story
 Tree’’ means an oak, pine, elm, spruce, maple, and the like.

51. Intentional (Connotative) Definitions
Intentional definition
 Is one that assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities or
attributes that the word connotes.
 Have four kind of definitional techniques
A. Synonymous definition is one in which the definiens is a single word
that connotes the same attributes as the definiendum.
Examples:
Observe’’ means see.
Emotions Means Feelings

52. B. Etymological definition: Assigns a
meaning to a word by disclosing the word’s
ancestry in both its own language and other
languages.
Examples:
 The word ‘‘license’’ is derived from the Latin verb
licere, which means to be permitted.
 The word Geez
C. Operational definition : Assigns a
meaning to a word by specifying certain
experimental procedures that determine
whether or not the word applies to a certain
thing.
Examples:
 One substance is ‘‘harder than’’ another if and
only if one scratches the other when the two are
rubbed together.
 A ‘‘potential difference’’ exists between two
conductors if and only if a voltmeters hows a
reading when connected to the two conductors.

53. D. Definition by genus and difference
 Assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and one or more difference
words that, when combined, convey the meaning of the term being defined.
 In logic, ‘‘genus’’ simply means a relatively larger class, and ‘‘species’ ’means a
relatively smaller subclass of the genus.
 Difference,’’ for short, is the attribute or attributes that distinguish the various
species within a genus.
Examples: Ice:
Genus: Water
Species: Ice
Differences: Cold/Frozen

54. Chapter. v
Informal Fallacies

55. Fallacies
Fallacy: Fallacy is a defect or mistake in reasoning, and when the
arguer uses other means such as intimidation, manipulation and
pity expression in the argument then the arguer said to be
committed fallacy.
Both deductive and inductive argument may contain fallacy if
they do they are either unsound or uncogent, that means that
contain false premises and incorrect reasoning in general.
 Fallacy Formal
Informal fallacy

56. A formal fallacy is a fallacy that can be detected by just examining the form or
structure of an argument. The formal fallacy occurs in only deductive arguments that have
identifiable forms, such as categorical and hypothetical syllogisms.
Example one:
All Tigers are Animals
All mammals are Animal
Hence, All Tigers are mammals
This arguments have the following forms: All A are B
All C are B
All A are C
# This argument is a deductive, or more specifically, a categorical syllogism.
However, the argument is invalid. The argument has got incorrect structure.

57. Examples two
If Ape are Intelligent then Apes can solve puzzles
Apes can solve puzzles
Hence, Apes are intelligent.
This examples have the following forms: If A…..Then….B
B
Hence, B
 This argument is a deductive argument, or more specifically, a hypothetical
syllogism. We gave letter A for the antecedent and letter B for the
consequent.
 The question is whether the argument is valid or invalid. The argument is
clearly invalid because, in principle, it is not the consequence that should
have come first but the antecedent.

58. An informal fallacy is a defect that is found in the content of the
argument, which could be inductive or deductive.
Examples one: All factories are plants.
All Plants are thing that contain chlorophyll.
Therefore, all factories are things that contain chlorophyll.
This examples have the following forms:
All A are B
All C are D
All A are D
# This is a deductive argument. When we look at the form, it seems like the
argument is valid and the conclusion follows with strict necessity, but it is not.
What makes this argument fallacious is because of the word sweet.

59. Informal fallacies
There are 22 informal fallacies that are
categorized into five groups:
Fallacy of relevance
Fallacy of weak induction
Fallacy of presumption
Fallacy of Ambiguity
Fallacy of grammatical analogy

60. I. Fallacy of
Relevance

61. Fallacy of relevance
1. Fallacy of relevance
 Committed when the premise of an argument is logically
irrelevant to the conclusion
 makes its bases on psychological or emotional expression.
Under the fallacy of relevance, there are eight fallacies.

62. 1. Appeal to Force
In the appeal to force fallacy, the arguer uses either physical or psychological force
that could be intimidation to get the audience to accept the conclusion.
Examples:
A. Mr. Abebe to Mr. kebede: Ethiopian foot ball club is the best national football
team in Ethiopia. If you don’t accept this, I will call the police and they will
punch you on the face. Then you will accept the conclusion I have drown.
B. Accept the existence of God. Ignoring this message makes your soul final
destination in hell.

63. 2. Appeal to Pity
The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to
accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
Examples:
A. Teacher I have known in the class that I am shy, generous, and
deaf. Therefore, according to my health matter and as a
mannered student I should deserve at least B in this course.
B. Your honor, my client is known for his generosity, helping poor
peoples, deeply religious and humanitarian. Therefore, I can
assure you that that my client is innocent of the case accused.

64. 3. Appeal to the people
The appeal to the people fallacy is all about the majority voice or
preferences.
Appealing to the people: Direct approach
Indirect approach
 A direct approach is one in which a given argument is addressed to a
large group of people.
 Indirect Approach: argument addressed to one or more individuals
in relation to the majority
# The indirect approach is classified in to three parts:
A. Bandwagon,
B. Appeal to vanity and
C. Appeal to snobbery

65. A. Bandwagon is related to the majority's voices, feelings, and interests. Just
because the majority preferred a given idea or product, the arguer invites the
audience to accept the majority's preferences in general.
B. Appeal to Vanity
Whenever the arguer relates a product with famous persons for the acceptance of
the product, the arguer commits the fallacy of vanity.
C. Appeal to Snobbery
The appeal to snobbery fallacy is committed whenever the product is associated
with a higher social class; most often, they are called the few.

66. Examples:
1. Democracy is a good form of government, because almost
all countries are using and following it.
2. Who is going to buy this new fashion Nick shoes bought by
famous musician Justin babbler.
3. The new Samsung s9 is not for everyone, it is for a few
selected individuals.

67. 4. Argument against person fallacy
Argument against person fallacy is a fallacy and it is committed when a
person criticizes the opponent's argument, but the criticism is not against
the idea presented by the person, but against the person himself.
Argument against person fallacy classified:
A. Ad-Hominum Abusive
B. Ad-Hominum circumstantial, and
C. You too (Tu Quoque)Fallacy

68. A). Ad Hominum Abusive
Ad-Hominum Abusive fallacy committed when a person attacks the other
argument by verbally abusing it. Therefore, this fallacy is an attack on the
person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.
B). Ad-Hominum circumstantial
Ad-Hominum circumstantial fallacy is committed when the person discredits
the others argument by alluding to it.
C). You too (Tu Quoque)Fallacy
You too, (Tu Quoque) fallacy is committed when the person responds to
criticism with criticism of their own.

69. Examples:
1.
Dr. : I see abnormalities in your breathing and heart
beat. So you must stop taking tobacco ok?
Patient: what do you mean Dr.?
I have seen you by my own naked eyes the other day that
you too were smoking. So your advice is not correct.
2.How a terrorist person can tell us about peace. Hence
let’s stop discussion this issue raised by Mr. Samuel.

70. 3. One of my friends said that plagiarism is illegal. But, she often copies
others work as her.
4. Abebech argues in favor of affirmative action for women. But her
argument is non sense, at its best because she is the executive committee
of the ministry of women’s affairs, and she wants to take advantage of the
budget increase for this ministry if affirmative action is endorsed.

71. 5 Fallacy of Accident
The fallacy of accident is committed by an argument that applies a
general rule to a particular case in which some special circumstance
("accident") makes the rule inapplicable.
Examples
1. Property should be given back to the rightful owner. Therefore, It
should give back this hand gun to this intoxicated man since he is the
rightful owner. This man is in fight with somebody else.
2. Freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed. Therefore, john
should not be arrested for his speech that incited the riot last week.

72. 6) Missing the point fallacy
 Committed when the premises of an argument do support a particular
conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
 In other words, the premises of one argument support a particular
conclusion, but another vaguely related conclusion is drawn instead.
Examples:
1. Governments in many third world nations are headed by ill-educated
politicians; and freedom of press is not allowed. So, in order to have
freedom of press, we must kill ill-educated politicians.
2. Addis Ababa has lot of problems, student services and facilities are
inadequate. Many of the instructors are inexperienced. it follow that
the university should be entirely closed.

73. 7) Straw Man fallacy
The straw man fallacy is committed when someone misrepresents their
opponent's argument in order to easily refute it.
Examples:
1. President Joy Biden argues for increased social security benefits for the
poor. Surely he is advocating socialism. Socialism discourage creativity, It
also leads to inefficiency. Furthermore, it did not work in Russia and
Eastern Europe. Clearly, socialism is not good.
2. John: “I believe sport hunting is immoral.” Michael: “So you want us all to be
vegetarians because animals are more important than people?”

74. 8. Red Herring Fallacy
 Committed when someone introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention
from the original discussion.
 Sometimes the argument may be about subtly related concepts, but away from
the original discussions.
Examples:
1. There is a good deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate racism
from the nation and nationalities of Ethiopian people. However, racism is
a kind of drug that perishes the integrated culture of people. Thus,
people should not persuade others that facilitate disturbing
relationships.

75. 2. George Floyd was not a hero and people should not be protesting his
death at the hands of the police. After all, George Floyd had a past
criminal record and was no angel. Why do liberals insist on venerating
criminals?”
 This argument is a red herring because it brings up George Floyd’s past
criminal history as a means to deflect from criticisms of the police who
murdered him. The fact that someone has a past criminal history is in
no way justification for them being killed or injured by the police.

76. II. Fallacy of
Weak
Induction

77. Fallacy of Weak Induction
The fallacy of weak induction occurs:
 The relationship between premise and conclusion is insufficient to provide an
adequate justification.
 The premises in the weak induction fallacy may be worthwhile, but they are
not adequate to justify the conclusion.
 The weak induction fallacy is commonly committed in inductive arguments.
There are six fallacies associated with the fallacy of weak induction.

78. 9. Appeal to unqualified Authority
 Appeal to unqualified authority is an instance of authority argument, and it is said
to be fallacious or committed when the stated authority fails to have knowledge in
a certain field, and
 It is also committed when the claimed authority makes a bias claim in favor of
something.
Examples:
1. Mr. Biden, an economist who argues that music enterprises are a key factor in harmonious
interaction across cultures. As a result, we may infer that our lives would be disastrous without
music, and we must consider the importance of music in our everyday lives.

79. Example Two:
2. Mr. Johnson who is the head of the kuklux clan (which were active white
racist group in USA during the 1920) argued that the white race is superior
race. Therefore, we should conclude that the black race is an inferior race
because Mr. Johnson said so.

80. 10. Appeal to ignorance fallacy
Arises when someone claims that a conclusion must be true
because there is no evidence to the contrary or that a conclusion
must be incorrect because no one has proven it to be true.
Examples
1. The existence of God is real, since no one has proved that
there is no such a thing as God.
2. The existence of God is not real, because no one yet proved
that it is real.

81. 11. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
The logical error of making a claim based on an amount of data much too small to verify
the assertion is known as the hasty generalization fallacy.
Examples:
1. Yesterday, as i walking in bole, i found two beggars, and they were from the region of
Benishangul Gumuz. Today, i found two beggars at 4 kilo, and they were also from the
same region. The conclusion is obvious: all beggars in Addis Ababa are from
Benishangul Gumuz region.
2. Three Africans were convicted of killing American people in Los Angeles city. Thus,
Africans are just criminals who gained their power through killing innocent people.

82. 12. False cause fallacy
The false cause fallacy is a type of causal inference in which the argument
appears to flow from cause to effect when there is in fact insufficient evidence
to think that a causal connection occurs.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
False cause fallacy: The "None Causa pro Causa" fallacy
Oversimplified
A. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (after this).
This fallacy is committed when the arguer claims that an event that happened
before is presumed to cause the next event just because it happened before
and not for any other reason.

83. And this fallacy has the following form or structure:
A causes B because A happened before B.
Example:
1. Ever since we quit going to church, our business has gotten worse. To
avoid such complications, we must attend church program.
B. None Cause pro Causa Fallacy (not the cause for the cause)
This fallacy is committed when the cited cause for the effect of
something is not true in reality.
Example:
2. What causes Ukraine to be defeated by Russia is simply that
Ukrainians are greedy at war.

84. C. Oversimplified
 Oversimplified occurs when it is assumed that there is a single,
simple cause of an outcome when, in reality, it may have been caused
by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
 And this fallacy has the following form or structure:
‘’A caused B; therefore, A was the only cause of B."
Example:
3. The absence of qualified experts is the primary reason for
Africa's lack of good education.

85. 13. Slippery slope fallacy
 The slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy that claims one event or
action will lead to another, more extreme event or action.
 This could be by directly causing that follow-up event, setting a
precedent for it, or simply creating an environment where that follow-up
event can occur.
 Slippery Slope Fallacy has the fooling structure
"If event A occurs, that will lead to negative outcome B, which causes
negative outcome C.“….

86. Example:
 If students are permitted to use their phones to check the
time while taking an exam, they will no longer purchase a
local watch. The discontinuation of purchasing watches
leads to clothing retailers. Finally, we all had less business,
which harmed our local economy.

87. 14. Weak Analogy
 The weak analogy fallacy is committed when two things
that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant
respects; the analogy is weak, and the argument that relies
on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
Or the analogy between two things or state of affairs are not
sufficient to make legitimate arguments as such.

88. Example
The government is like a ship, and the president is like its captain. If
the captain makes the wrong decisions, the ship will sink.
Explanations:
 This argument uses a weak analogy because the president is not exactly
like the captain of a ship. The responsibilities and functions of the president
are not like those of the captain of a ship. The president is responsible for
large decisions affecting the entire nation, not just the navigation of a ship.
Therefore, this analogy is not strong enough to support the argument that
the president's wrong decisions would lead the nation to sink.

89. III. Fallacy of
presumption

90. Fallacy of presumption
Fallacy of presumption
The third classification is Fallacy of presumption
 Fallacy of presumption are fallacious arguments that depend on
some assumption that is typically unstated and unsupported.
And under this fallacy there are eight one.
15. The begging question fallacy
being circular” or “circular reasoning”,
simply ignores key premises
Beg Question

91. Examples:
1. Murder is morally wrong this being the case that, it
follow that abortion is morally wrong.
2. The president is telling the truth because he says he is
telling the truth.

92. 16. Complex question Fallacy
 Multiple questions are hidden in a single question.
Examples
1: Are you still drinking alcohol excessively?
2: Where did the government hide the opposition party prisoners?

93. 17. False Dichotomy (False Bifurcation)
 A false dilemma is an informal fallacy that presents two options as the only
two, while a false dichotomy is the misinformed belief that the two options
presented are the only two.
 The source of the fallacy lies in a false premise.
False Dichotomy: Premise: only two extreme alternatives given.
Conclusion: one of the suggested alternative is true.

94. Examples:
1. Either you buy only Ethiopian product or you don‘t deserve to be called a
loyal Ethiopian. Yesterday you bought a new V-8 car. It is therefore, you
don’t deserved to be called a loyal Ethiopian .
2. Either you're in favor of the Democrats or you're against them.

95. 18. Suppressed Evidence
 The suppressed evidence fallacy is committed when the arguer overemphasize a
certain claims for the exclusions of others in order to conceal evidence that is
important and relevant to the conclusions of an arguments.
Examples
1. Most Dogs are friendly and pose no threat to people who pet them.
Therefore, it would be safe to pet the little dog.
2. NASA is the most significant scientific agency in the world because its
surroundings are clean and its compounds include lovely pups.

96. IV. Fallacy of
Ambiguity

97. Fallacy of Ambiguity
Fallacy of Ambiguity
Fallacies of Ambiguity involve some confusion over
meaning, specifically over the members referred to by a
term used in the argument.
19. Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a single word
is used in to two different ways in a given arguments.

98. Examples:
1. Some triangles are obtuse. whatever obtuse is ignorant.
Therefore, triangles are ignorant.
2. Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority, But
the law of gravity is a law. Hence, the law of gravity can
be repealed by the legislative authority.

99. 20. Amphiboly
This is a fallacy caused by a misinterpretation of grammar,
usually by misapplying an adjectival or an adverbial phrase to
the wrong subject.
Example:
1. The tour guide said that standing in Greenwich village, the
empire state buildings could easily be seen. It follow that the
empire state building is in Greenwich village.

100. Example Two:
 John told Henry that he had made a mistakes. It follow
that John has at least the courage to admit his own
mistakes.

101. V. Fallacy of
Grammatical
Analogy

102. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
21. Composition
 The fallacy of composition is committed when the attributes of something
wrongly transfer from part to whole.
Examples:
1. Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. It follow
that the chalk is invisible.
2. Each member of a team is married, hence the team must
have a wife.

103. 22. Divisions
The fallacy of division is the exact opposite of the composition fallacy, and it is
committed when the attributes of something are transferred from whole to parts.
Examples:
1. Mango Juice is sweet. Therefor, its chemical elements:
potassium, calcium, fat and iron are sweet.
2. The UK is the richest country in the world. It follow that, my
uncle who live there must be a rich (wealthy) too.

104. Question (Informal Fallacy)
1. We need to work on our peace throughout the country to bring
about peaceful integration in society. However, crime is rising
at an alarming rate in our country. Thus, hiring more police
officers would be the best solution to address the issues that
we are facing.
2. After I started wearing my shirt, my team started winning all
their games. Therefore, my lucky shirts are the reason why
they are winning."

105. 3. Samson argued that we should implement stricter regulations
on carbon emissions to address climate change. Mr. Abebe
replied, "So, you're saying you want to destroy the economy and
put hardworking people out of jobs? That's imbalanced and
impractical!“
4. Daniel recommends taking Panadol pills once a day for
people who suffer from headaches. Daniel is a logic course
lecturer. As a result, it is safe to take two Panadol pills each day
for one's health.
5. So far, no proof has been discovered that indicates Ethiopia
doesn’t have 4,000 years of history. Therefore, Ethiopia has
4,000 years of history.

106. 6. To solve climate change, Abebe stated that we should impose stronger
regulations on carbon emissions. However, in order to eradicate the growing crime
in our city, we demand strict control. As a result, rather than being established as a
symbol, the regulations should be enforced.
7. Abebe, a phone technician, informed me that my phone needed to have some
software upgraded and some hardware parts changed. As a result, I should regard
Abebe's claim as a certainty.
8. Mr. Christian forwarded the following assumption to Mr. Daniel: the assumption
you articulated to the House of Federation is infeasible and should not be praised at
all. Mr. Daniel responded to Mr. Christian by saying that if you don't want to
admire it, make sure you lose your job; you better accept it.

107. 9. Homosexual marriages are just immoral. 70% of Ethiopians think
so!
10. The current Ethiopian government is confronted with various
issues, including insufficient community services, economic
concerns, and a large number of inexperienced government
executives. Therefore, we can conclude that Ethiopian society
doesn't entirely need any government at all.

108. 11. Five lawmakers from Republican parties have been found guilty of a criminal
offense involving the manipulation of government assets. The DC police investigated
their case and reported it to the US Supreme Court, which imposed a one-year prison
sentence and a $100,000 decision on five politicians who manipulated public assets.
As a result, we may infer that the Republicans do not care about the rest of the people;
they are simply criminals who work solely for their personal advantage.
12. Some people maintain that moving to other nations illegally, particularly
Europe, results in death, discrimination, and high levels of vulnerability.
After all, that is the only other option we have if we do not want to see
people tortured by their own country's discomfort.