2 Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential support are worthless.!
3 Top 10 Critical Thinking Skills!! 1. How to define a good argument! 2. How to recognize an argument! 3. How to identify premises and conclusions! 4. How to distinguish an argument from an explanation! 5. How to distinguish deduction from induction! 6. How to understand logical implication 7. How to tell whether an argument form is valid! 8. How to show that a deductive argument is invalid! 9. How to tell whether an argument is good! 10. How to prove that any argument is bad!
4 Section 1.1: Identify arguments, premises and conclusions!
5 An argument is a collection of claims intended to establish the truth of a specific claim!
6 1. How to define a good argument! An argument is GOOD if and only if it is either SOUND or COGENT.! Thus, an argument is good if and only if it is either deductively valid plus all of its premises are true, i.e., SOUND, or, it is inductively strong plus all of its premises are true, i.e., COGENT.! an argument is VALID if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when all of its assumptions are true! an argument is STRONG if and only if is improbable that the conclusion is false when all of its assumptions are true! Understand, memorize, apply this definition - it will help you every day!
7 How the text relates to the skills! Section 1.1: Identify arguments, premises and conclusions! Section 1.2: Recognizing arguments and explanations! Section 1.3: Discern deductive from inductive arguments! Section 1.4: Validity, soundness, strength and cogency! Section 1.5: Argument forms, proving invalidity! You should complete all exercises assigned from each of these sections according to the syllabus schedule.!
8 What undermines critical thinking?!
9 There are only two kinds of good argument!
11 2. How to recognize an argument! arguments present rational reasons for belief (rational = reasonable, non-emotional, non-personal, non-historical)! argument disagreement! argument = proof, some arguments are good and some are bad, but all arguments must cite evidence! does the set of claims aim to justify/prove a conclusion about a specific issue (the main subject of controversy)? if not, it is a non-argument, e.g., these are not arguments: an exposition, a report, an illustration, an explanation, a conditional statement, or any statement of belief! the conclusion is the one precise claim which all other claims (premises) support there can only be one conclusion! premises (evidence) must present reasons which justify accepting the conclusion!
12 3. How to identify premises and conclusions! look for indicator words because, since, for, therefore, so, given that, we may infer that, it follows that! check support relations which claim needs the most support, which claims seem to be supporting another! eliminate alternatives when you can t distinguish premises from the conclusion, just choose one claim at a time as the conclusion and decide whether the rest support it, if not, keep reconstructing these until you get the most charitable reconstruction! reconstruct using a charitable interpretation presume that other people, like yourself, are lovers of the good and believers of truths, so when more than one interpretation of an argument is possible, interpret the argument so that the premises provide the strongest support for the conclusion!
13 3. How to identify premises and conclusions - Examples! Students should complete every online quiz in the course. Each student loses 10 points or five percent of the total points available in the course for every online quiz that they do not complete.! Students cannot re-take or make-up any quiz, absolutely, no exceptions. There isn't time for this and there are plenty of points available so that one can miss a quiz and still do well in the course.!
14 3. How to identify premises and conclusions - Examples! Students should complete every online quiz in the course. Each student loses 10 points or five percent of the total points available in the course for every online quiz that they do not complete.! Students cannot re-take or make-up any quiz, absolutely, no exceptions. There isn't time for this and there are plenty of points available so that one can miss a quiz and still do well in the course.!
15 Section 1.2: Recognizing arguments and explanations!
16 4. How to distinguish an argument from an explanation! what are the reasons doing? use the diagram! notice arguments and explanations both have conclusions and reasons... but only explanations describe what causes a conclusion to be true! justifying explaining! if reasons are justifying belief in the conclusion, then it's an argument! if reasons are specifying cause(s) of truth of the conclusion, then it's an explanation!
17 Arguments vs. Explanations!
18 Examples of Explanations!
20 Section 1.3: Discern deductive from inductive arguments!
21 5. How to distinguish deduction from induction! reconstruct using a charitable interpretation - when more than one interpretation of an argument is possible, interpret the argument so that the premises provide the strongest support for the conclusion! if the conclusion seems necessary, then it is deduction! if the conclusion seems probable, then it is induction! conclusions of inductive arguments assert more than what is contained in the premises, but conclusions of deductive arguments do not - the conclusion of a deductive argument is not supposed to contain more information than the premises! if the conclusion of an argument could be false when all of the premises are true, then the argument is not deductive!
22 Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning!
25 6. How to understand (and test) logical implication! implication = conditional = hypothetical! To say that "P implies Q" means that whenever P is true Q is also true.! P implies Q = if P then Q = all P are Q = the only P are Q = P only if Q! P does not imply Q when P is true and Q is not.! P only if Q is the best way to read if P then Q or! P implies Q statements. Why? P only if Q is logically equivalent to P implies Q and makes our brains see two things: (1) that P is only sufficient for Q it is not necessary, and (2) that Q is necessary for P P can t be true without Q also being true.!
26 Every conditional has two components! the antecedent condition implies the consequent condition!
27 How to test logical implications! implication = conditional = hypothetical! Conditionals are false only when their antecedents are true and their consequent is false. We test a conditional for truth by thinking of a counter-example to it which shows that it is false.! The implication fails when P does not imply Q,! i.e., when P is true and Q is not.! Suppose someone says:! If you love me, then you buy me a diamond ring.! When is this clearly false?! Answer: Whenever the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. That is, in any case where it is plausible that one both loves someone and one does not buy that someone a diamond ring.!
28 Section 1.4: Validity, soundness, strength and cogency!
29 7. How to tell whether an argument form is valid! Ask: Can the conclusion be false when all assumptions true?! an argument is VALID if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when all of its assumptions are true! Is the form same as known valid forms? examples! consider counter-examples to the form to test it! an argument is SOUND if and only if it is valid plus all assumptions are true! valid true, valid good, only arguments can be valid!
32 8. How to show that a deductive argument is invalid! show it is NOT valid by showing how conclusion can be true when all assumptions false! reveal the pattern, then consider counter-examples to the logical form itself! construct a substitution instance (using all true premises and a false conclusion) with the counter-example method to test whether a form is valid or invalid! How to do this: (1) STATE the argument. (2) EXTRACT its logical form. (3) SUBSTITUTE terms. (4) EVALUATE - does your example show that the conclusion could be false when all of the premises are true? If yes, the argument is invalid. If no, try again, but at some point you have to consider that it might be valid, or you are unable to think of a counter-example but it really is invalid.! every substitution instance of a valid form is a valid argument but it is not the case that every substitution instance of an invalid form is an invalid argument - this is rare!
33 One way to show that an argument form is invalid!
34 9. How to tell whether an argument is good! An argument is GOOD if and only if it is either SOUND or COGENT.! restate it using a charitable interpretation! reconstruct/check its form (logic check)! clarify/check its assumptions (fact check)! the argument is good only if its reconstruction passes logic check and fact check! only assumptions are true or false, arguments are not true or false! When evaluating an argument with unstated premises, find a claim that would make the argument valid or strong and evaluate the argument as if this claim had been included.!
35 10. How to prove that any argument is bad! Show that its form is illogical, because it is either not truthpreserving (deductively valid) or not truth-generating (inductively strong). Call this the form test or the logic check.! Or, show that its content - at least one of its assumptions - is incredible, because it is either demonstrably false or improbable.! Good arguments, by comparison, are less vulnerable to these problems than are bad arguments. Call this the fact check or reality check. This is a test of soundness for deductive arguments, and a test of cogency for inductive arguments.! An argument is bad, i.e., fails to justify its conclusion, if and only if it fails either the logic check or the reality check.! In other words, an argument is bad it is neither sound nor cogent. Such arguments fail either the logic check or the reality check.!
36 There are only two kinds of good argument!
37 So, a BAD argument is one which is not sound and not cogent.!
38 BAD = not GOOD! A lot of good arguments are spoiled! by some fool who knows what he is talking about.! - Miguel de Unamuno!
39 Summary: Two ways arguments go bad! 1. An argument is BAD if it fails the logic check, that is, if it is possible or probable that its conclusion is false when all of it premises are true.! Jane got straight As in high-school, so Jane will probably get straight As in college.! OR! 2. An argument is BAD if if fails the reality check, that is, if at least one of its assumptions is false or dubious.! Jack completed all of the quizzes, because Jack passed the course.!
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by
Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments Logic teaches us to develop a system of methods and principles to use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others to guide us in constructing arguments
What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.
Critical Thinking The Very Basics (at least as I see them) Dona Warren Department of Philosophy The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point What You ll Learn Here I. How to recognize arguments II. How to
Analysis Breaking down an idea, concept, theory, etc. into its most basic parts in order to get a better understanding of its structure. This is necessary to evaluate the merits of the claim properly (is
1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4 Summary Notes These are summary notes so that you can really listen in class and not spend the entire time copying notes. These notes will not substitute for reading the
by SALVATORE - 5 September 2009, 10:44 PM I`m having difficulty understanding what steps to take in applying valid argument forms to do a proof. What determines which given premises one should select to
National Qualifications 06 06 Philosophy Higher Finalised Marking Instructions Scottish Qualifications Authority 06 The information in this publication may be reproduced to support SQA qualifications only
1 CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK Dona Warren, Philosophy Department, The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point I. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to
Instructor s Manual 1 PREFACE This instructor s manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the 14th edition of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon s Introduction to Logic. The
The Problem of Evil Proofs of Non-existence Proofs of non-existence are strange; strange enough in fact that some have claimed that they cannot be done. One problem is with even stating non-existence claims:
18. If inflation heats up, then interest rates will rise. If interest rates rise, then bond prices will decline. Therefore, if inflation heats up, then bond prices will decline. 19. Statistics reveal that
Study Guides Chapter 1 - Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 9- Sentential roofs 9.1 Introduction So far we have introduced three ways of assessing the validity of truth-functional arguments.
A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic Sungwoo Park Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea Estonian Theory Days Jan 30, 2009 Outline Study of logic Model theory vs Proof theory Classical
An Introduction to Formal Logic Second edition Peter Smith February 27, 2019 Peter Smith 2018. Not for re-posting or re-circulation. Comments and corrections please to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk 1 What
Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group
Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations
Argument and Persuasion Stating Opinions and Proposals The Method It all starts with an opinion - something that people can agree or disagree with. The Method Move to action Speak your mind Convince someone
PHILOSOPHY ESSAY ADVICE One: What ought to be the primary objective of your essay? The primary objective of your essay is not simply to present information or arguments, but to put forward a cogent argument
A Note on Straight-Thinking A supplementary note for the 2nd Annual JTS/CGST Public Ethics Lecture March 5, 2002(b), adj. 2009:03:05 G.E.M. of TKI Arguments & Appeals In arguments, people try to persuade
Critical Thinking Lecture Four October 5, 2012 Chapter 3 Deductive Argument Patterns Diagramming Arguments Deductive Argument Patterns - There are some common patterns shared by many deductive arguments
1.2. What is said: propositions 1.2.0. Overview In 1.1.5, we saw the close relation between two properties of a deductive inference: (i) it is a transition from premises to conclusion that is free of any
Truth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011. According to Luis de Molina, God knows what each and every possible human would
I. LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION 1 A. LOGIC 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. 3. It doesn t attempt to determine how people in fact reason. 4.
1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include
1. Introduction 1.1. Formal deductive logic 1.1.0. Overview In this course we will study reasoning, but we will study only certain aspects of reasoning and study them only from one perspective. The special
Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning First Steps to Analyzing an Argument In the following slides, some simple arguments will be given. The steps to begin analyzing each argument
Dr. Isidoro Talavera Franklin University, Philosophy Ph.D. in Philosophy - Vanderbilt University M.A. in Philosophy - Vanderbilt University M.A. in Philosophy - University of Missouri M.S.E. in Math Education
CRITICAL THINKING Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the finest computers on the earth. But, like any other muscle in your body, it needs to be exercised to work its best. That exercise is called
. What is the purpose of argumentation? Argumentation 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? According to Toulmin (964), the checking list can be outlined as follows: () The Claim
Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments
Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating
5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous
ARGUMENTS IN ACTION Descriptions: creates a textual/verbal account of what something is, was, or could be (shape, size, colour, etc.) Used to give you or your audience a mental picture of the world around
PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 9 th, 2015 All About Arguments (Part II) 1 A common theme linking many fallacies is that they make unwarranted assumptions. An assumption is a claim
Reason and Argument Richard Feldman Second Edition Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at:
University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 5 May 14th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Commentary pm Krabbe Dale Jacquette Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive
Govier: A Practical Study of Argument 1 Evaluating Arguments Chapter 4 begins an important discussion on how to evaluate arguments. The basics on how to evaluate arguments are presented in this chapter
Reconstructing Arguments Argument reconstruction is where we take a written argument, and re-write it to make the logic of the argument as obvious as possible. I have broken down this task into six steps:
Handout 1 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions In our day to day lives, we find ourselves arguing with other people. Sometimes we want someone to do or accept something as true
A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields Problem cases by Edmund Gettier 1 and others 2, intended to undermine the sufficiency of the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.
University of Notre Dame Spring, 2017 Arguments Philosophy has two main methods for trying to answer questions: analysis and arguments Logic is the the study of arguments An argument is a set of sentences,
Helpful Hints for doing Philosophy Papers (Spring 2000) (1) The standard sort of philosophy paper is what is called an explicative/critical paper. It consists of four parts: (i) an introduction (usually
Critical Thinking - Wk 3 Instructor: Jason Sheley Quick Quiz Give an example of a statement. Give an example of sentence that is not a statement. Give an example of an argument Validity, Truth, Soundness,
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXXXI No. 2, September 2010 Ó 2010 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Coordination Problems scott soames
TOPIC: You need to be able to: Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims). Organize arguments that we read into a proper argument
!Validity!Soundness Today s Lecture 1//21/10 Announcements -- The syllabus (pdf) and Tuesday s lecture are posted on-line. See www.csun.edu/~jdblair/ -- Homework: Exercise 1.1: Part A (odds), Part C (odds).
An Introduction to Symbolic Logic Copyright 2006 by Terence Parsons all rights reserved CONTENTS Chapter One Sentential Logic with 'if' and 'not' 1 SYMBOLIC NOTATION 2 MEANINGS OF THE SYMBOLIC NOTATION
Theorem A Theorem is a valid deduction. One of the key activities in higher mathematics is identifying whether or not a deduction is actually a theorem and then trying to convince other people that you
Suppressed premises in real life Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3 & Some Exercises Analyzing inferences: finale Suppressed premises: from mechanical solutions to elegant ones Practicing on some real-life
Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional
Philosophy 101 (3/24/11) I ve posted solutions to HW #3 (study these!) HW #4 is due today Quiz #4 is next Thursday This will be re-do of the last quiz (on chs. 3&4) I ll give you the higher of your two
IN DEFENCE OF CLOSURE IN DEFENCE OF CLOSURE By RICHARD FELDMAN Closure principles for epistemic justification hold that one is justified in believing the logical consequences, perhaps of a specified sort,
Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL - and thus deduction
Introduction Logic and Carnegie Mellon University 9th September 2015 Writing Assignments and Readings In this course we re going to be doing a lot of reading. As per the syllabus, you should be sure to
Introduction to Logic Instructor: Jason Sheley In this section we will learn: What is the difference between Deduction and Induction? Why use different types of logic? What is a valid argument? Invalid?
Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators Inference-Indicators and the Logical Structure of an Argument 1. The Idea
MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.
Lecture Notes on Classical Logic 15-317: Constructive Logic William Lovas Lecture 7 September 15, 2009 1 Introduction In this lecture, we design a judgmental formulation of classical logic To gain an intuition,
Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate We ve been discussing the free will defense as a response to the argument from evil. This response assumes something about us: that we have free will. But what does this mean?
Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the
chapter 36 Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn In 1666 a young scientist was sitting in a garden when an apple fell to the ground. This made him wonder why apples fall straight down, rather
Philosophy 220 Truth Functional Properties Expressed in terms of Consistency The concepts of truth-functional logic: Truth-functional: Truth Falsity Indeterminacy Entailment Validity Equivalence Consistency
PHI 103 - Introduction Lecture 4 An Overview of the wo Branches of Logic he wo Branches of Logic Argument - at least two statements where one provides logical support for the other. I. Deduction - a conclusion
First printing: July 2010 Copyright 2010 by Jason Lisle. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except
Lecture 1 The Concept of Inductive Probability Patrick Maher Philosophy 517 Spring 2007 Two concepts of probability Example 1 You know that a coin is either two-headed or two-tailed but you have no information
Exam Name SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question. Draw a Venn diagram for the given sets. In words, explain why you drew one set as a subset of
1 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 5 A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 1.1 Arguments Arguments crop up in conversations, political debates, lectures, editorials, comic strips, novels, television programs,
Logic Book Part 1 by Skylar Ruloff Contents Introduction 3 I Validity and Soundness 4 II Argument Forms 10 III Counterexamples and Categorical Statements 15 IV Strength and Cogency 21 2 Introduction This
Deductive arguments are commonly used in various kinds of academic writing. In order to be able to perform a critique of deductive arguments, we will need to understand their basic structure. As will be
Relevance Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true Premises are irrelevant when they do not 1 Non Sequitur Latin for it does
The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 217 October 2004 ISSN 0031 8094 PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE AND META-ETHICS BY IRA M. SCHNALL Meta-ethical discussions commonly distinguish subjectivism from emotivism,
QCAA Study of Religion 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus Considerations supporting the development of Learning Intentions, Success Criteria, Feedback & Reporting Where are Syllabus objectives taught (in
Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments Week 4: Propositional Logic and Truth Tables Lecture 4.1: Introduction to deductive logic Deductive arguments = presented as being valid, and successful only
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 1 - Basic Training 1.1 Introduction In this logic course, we are going to be relying on some mental muscles that may need some toning
Realism and the success of science argument Leplin: 1) Realism is the default position. 2) The arguments for anti-realism are indecisive. In particular, antirealism offers no serious rival to realism in
A Brief History of Thinking about Thinking Thomas Lombardo "Education is nothing more nor less than learning to think." Peter Facione In this article I review the historical evolution of principles and
Explanation for Question 1 in Quiz 8 by Norva Lo - Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 9:39 AM The following is the solution for Question 1 in Quiz 8: (a) Which term in the argument is being equivocated. (b) What
PHILOSOPHER S TOOL KIT PROFESSOR JULIE YOO 1. Arguments 1.1 Deductive vs Induction Arguments 1.2 Common Deductive Argument Forms 1.3 Common Inductive Argument Forms 1.4 Deduction: Validity and Soundness