HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)"

Transcription

1 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 citing other ideas as evidence. The idea that the argument tries to prove is called the ultimate conclusion. Ideas that the argument uses as evidence for the ultimate conclusion, but that the argument assumes to be true without providing proof, are called premises. Intermediate ideas on the way from the premises to the ultimate conclusion are called subconclusions. The connection that holds between a set of ideas, R, and another idea, C, when the truth of the ideas in R is supposed to establish the truth of C is called an inference. In order to identify an argument, we ask, Is this passage trying to convince us that something is true? If so, the passage contains an argument. If not, it doesn t. Use Inference Indicator Expressions We can sometimes recognize an argument by spotting inference indicator expressions, although we should remember that some passages containing inference indicator expressions don t contain arguments because inference indicator expressions can occur in explanations as well. We should also remember that some passages containing arguments don t contain inference indicator expressions. Reason indicator expressions show that X is being given as a reason to believe Y. Some examples: Y because X or Because X, Y. Y, since X or Since X, Y. Given that X, Y or Y, given that X. Assuming that X, Y or Y, assuming that X. Inasmuch as X, Y or Y, inasmuch as X. In view of the fact that X, Y or Y, in view of the fact that X. Y. The reason is that X Y. After all, X. Conclusion indicator expressions show that Y is supposed to be concluded from X. Some examples: X. Therefore Y. X. Thus Y. X. Consequently Y. X. Hence Y. X. So Y. X. This goes to show that Y. X. It follows that Y. X. As a result, Y. X. That s why Y. X, which implies that Y. X, which means that Y. To determine whether an inference indicator expression is a reason indicator expression or a conclusion indicator expression, first replace it with because, then replace it with therefore, and see which passage is more like the original. II. ARGUMENT ANALYSIS Identifying the important ideas, identifying the argumentative role of the ideas, identifying the inferences, and reconstructing the argument are often intermingled in practice and are frequently done mentally.

2 2 1. Identify the important ideas We make a list of the important ideas in the argument. Ideas are complete thoughts that are either true or false, even though we might not know for certain which it is. Start With the Ultimate Conclusion We start by asking, What is the main idea that this argument is trying to get us to believe? This main idea is the ultimate conclusion and we write it first in our list of important ideas, giving it the number 1 and putting a U next to it. If the ultimate conclusion of the argument is unstated, we list it as letter a. If we can t identify the ultimate conclusion, we should simply list the important ideas in the order they appear in the passage. Once we draw in the inferences, the ultimate conclusion will be the idea to which all of the other ideas eventually lead. Identify the Lines of Reasoning It s often useful to determine whether or not the argument appears to have more than one line of reasoning as soon as possible. If an argument does have more than one line of reasoning, it s helpful to count how many separate lines of reasoning the argument has and to determine which ideas belong to each line. This will substantially reduce the complexity of the diagramming process. Identify the Other Important Ideas After we ve identified the ultimate conclusion, we go back and record all of the other ideas that strike us as relevant to establishing the truth of the ultimate conclusion, and number them starting with 2. If we aren t sure whether or not an idea is important, we should include it just to be safe. It s okay if some of the ideas in our list aren t included in the eventual diagram. Sentences and Ideas Sentences that convey ideas are usually statements. To be complete, a statement must have a subject and a predicate and all sentence connectors must be connecting sentences that are themselves complete. Masking statements, unlike normal statements, convey ideas they don t actually state. If the idea is important, we should rephrase the statement and include it in our list of ideas. Unimportant statements aren t relevant to establishing the truth of the ultimate conclusion. We won t include them in our list of ideas. Normal questions don t convey ideas. Statement questions do convey ideas. If the idea is important, we should rephrase the question and include it in our list of ideas. Normal commands don t convey ideas. Statement commands do convey ideas. If the idea is important, we should rephrase the command and include it in our list of ideas. Sometimes a sentence contains more than one idea. In general, sentence S conveys idea I if the truth of S ensures the truth of I. We must divide a sentence into its component ideas around inference indicator expressions. We may divide a

3 3 compound sentence around connectives like and, but, yet, however, although, even though, moreover, and nevertheless. We should split a sentence into its component ideas if the component ideas significantly differ in their plausibility or if one of the component ideas appears without the others elsewhere in the argument. We can t divide a compound sentence around connectives like if then, or or. Sometimes multiple sentences in an argument convey the same idea. S1 and S2 convey the same idea just in case if S1 is true then S2 is true and if S2 is true then S1 is true. We write down each important idea only once, even when it s conveyed by more than one sentence. Use Inference Indicator Expressions Inference indicator expressions can help us decide if an idea is important. If an idea is the object of an inference indicator expression, then it s either the reason or the conclusion of an inference and so needs to be included in the argument. 2. Identify the argumentative role of these ideas If we know what the ultimate conclusion of the argument is, we put a U next to it. For each of the other ideas in our list, we ask, Does the argument give us reason to believe this, or does the argument just take it for granted? If the argument doesn t give us reasons to believe an idea, it s a premise. We put P s next to the premises. If the argument does give us reasons to believe an idea, it s a subconclusion. We put S s next to the subconclusions. If we don t know what the ultimate conclusion is, we can simply put C s (indicating generic conclusions) next to ideas that the argument gives us reason to believe. Use Inference Indicator Expressions We can use inference indicator expressions to help us. The ultimate conclusion can be the object of conclusion indicator expressions but not reason indicator expressions. Premises can be the object of reason indicator expressions but not conclusion indicator expressions. Subconclusions can be the object of reason indicator expressions and conclusion indicator expressions. Note Inference Eraser Expressions The connectors and (not and so ) and its equivalents, such as moreover, and the connector but, and its equivalents, such as yet, however, although, even though, nevertheless, tend to show us that an inference is not present between the ideas they connect. 3. Identify the inferences

4 4 We can focus on the conclusions (whether the ultimate conclusion or a subconclusion) and ask What reason does the argument give us to believe this? or we can focus on the reasons (whether a premise or a subconclusion) and ask What is the argument taking this to establish? We draw an arrow pointing from an idea to the idea that it s taken to support. I1 and I2 are dependent reasons in support of I3 if neither I1 nor I2 can support I3 alone but together they can support I3. We connect dependent reasons with a bracket and draw one arrow from the bracket to the conclusion of the inference. I1 and I2 are independent reasons in support of I3 if both I1 and I2 could support I3 alone. We draw separate arrows from independent reasons or lines of reasoning. Use Inference Indicator Expressions We can make use of inference indicator expressions to help us here, if the passage has them. Note Inference Eraser Expressions We should be alert for inference eraser expressions. Arrow In and Out Rules The ultimate conclusion must have at least one arrow pointing to it but no arrows pointing from it. Premises must have arrows going from them but no arrows going to them. Subconclusions must have arrows going to them and from them. Identify Dependent Reasons. There are seven tests for dependent reasons: 1) The Ophthalmology Test, 2) The Inference Indicator / Eraser Test, 3) The Try It Out Test, 4) The Puzzle Piece Test, 5) The Normative Conclusion Test, 6) The Comparative Conclusion Test, 7) The Means / Ends Test. Identify Independent Reasons To identify independent lines of reasoning, we ask How many separate lines of reasoning are we given? We can answer this question by identifying distinct themes that are advanced in support of the conclusion. These themes are roughly identical with the notions shared by different ideas. Instances of a generalization may be treated either as examples or as evidence. If they re treated as examples, they shouldn t be included in the diagram. If they re treated as evidence, they should be included in the diagram. Double-Checking the Inferences

5 5 We double check the inferences by reading away from the arrow head with a reason indicator expression, by reading toward the arrow head with a conclusion indicator expression, by reading the bracket as an and, and by comparing our inferences against the original argument. 4. Reconstruct the argument We reconstruct the argument by diagramming it. We refer to the ideas by number, put the number of the ultimate conclusion at the bottom, the numbers of the premises at the top, numbers of subconclusions in the middle, and use arrows to represent the inferences. We connect dependent reasons with a plus sign and we draw separate arrows from independent reasons. We label the arrows with capital letters to make them easier to refer to later. III. ARGUMENT EVALUATION 1. Appreciate the general structure of the argument A good argument establishes the truth of its ultimate conclusion and gives its audience good reason to think that the ultimate conclusion is true. A bad argument either doesn t establish the truth of its ultimate conclusion or else doesn t give its audience good reason to think that the ultimate conclusion is true. For arguments with only one line of reasoning, one bad premise or one bad inference is enough to make the argument bad. Arguments with independent lines of reasoning are good if even one of the lines of reasoning is good. The Hanging Man Model We can imagine that the ultimate conclusion of the argument is a fellow hanging onto one or more ropes (inference) suspended from one or more beams (premises). Each inference corresponds to a different segment of the rope, and each dependent premise corresponds to a different part of the beam. An argument is good if it holds the fellow up and bad if it lets the fellow fall. Evaluating Subconclusions We should never evaluate subconclusions as a part of the final evaluation of an argument. We may look at subconclusions in the process of evaluating an argument. If we disagree with a subconclusion, we should examine the premises and inferences above it. 2. Evaluate the premises When evaluating a premise, we should ask ourselves three questions:

6 6 1) Is this premise true? 2) Would most members of the argument s audience, including people who don t already believe the ultimate conclusion, believe this premise? and 3) Does the argument s audience have good reason to believe this premise? If the answer to one of these questions is no, the premise is bad. If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the premise is good. Evaluating If then Sentences In order to evaluate an If then sentence, we ask ourselves Could the first part be true and the back part be false at the same time? If the answer is Yes, then the If then sentence is false. If the answer is No, then the If then sentence is true. 3. Evaluate the inferences To say that the inference between R and C is valid is to say that if R were true then C would have to be true as well. To say that the inference between R and C is good is to say that if R were true then C would most likely be true as well, although it wouldn t have to be true. To say that the inference between R and C is bad is to say that even if R were true, C could very easily be false; it s to say that the truth of R has virtually no bearing upon the truth of C. The Bob Method Bob is a perfectly gullible but perfectly rational person. We tell Bob to believe R and then ask ourselves In light of his belief in R, how likely is Bob to believe C? If Bob is compelled to believe C, then the inference between R and C is valid. If Bob is inclined but not compelled to believe C, then the inference between R and C is invalid but good. If Bob is not at all inclined to believe C, then the inference between R and C is invalid and bad. The Counterexample Method When evaluating argument A1, see if you can find a structurally similar argument, A2, that has true premises and a false conclusion. If you can find such an argument A2, then there s something wrong with at least one inference in A1. The Formal Method Determine if an inference has one of the following forms and evaluate it accordingly. Invalid Inference Forms: If P then Q. Q. Therefore P. (The Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent) If P then Q. Not P. Therefore Not Q. (The Fallacy of Negating the Antecedent) Valid Inference Forms:

7 7 If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. (Modus Ponens) If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore Not P. (Modus Tollens) If P then Q. If Q then R. Therefore if P then R. Either P or Q. Not P. Therefore Q. Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. Therefore R. (Simple Dilemma) Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. Therefore either R or S. (Complex Dilemma) If P then Q and If Not Q the Not P, are logically equivalent and interchangeable. Find Missing Subconclusions If an inference forces us to add together more than two dependent reasons at a time, and if the inference isn t a simple dilemma (Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then R. Therefore R.) or a complex dilemma (Either P or Q. If P then R. If Q then S. Therefore either R or S.), we can add missing subconclusion to reduce that inference into multiple smaller inferences that are easier to evaluate. To find missing subconclusions, we ask What two ideas go together nicely? and What subconclusion follows from these two ideas when we snap them together? This idea is the missing subconclusion. We add the missing subconclusion to our list of ideas and diagram, designating it with a lowercase letter instead of a number, and allowing it to play the same role that its two parent ideas jointly played before. We can proceed in this fashion until the inference adds together only two ideas at a time. 4. Evaluate the argument We evaluate the argument in light of our evaluation of the premises and the inferences. Finding out that an argument is bad gives us no useful information about the ultimate conclusion because bad arguments can have true or false conclusions. Finding out that an argument is good does give us useful information about the ultimate conclusion because good arguments must have true conclusions. If we think that an argument is good, we should believe the ultimate conclusion. If we think that an argument is pretty good but not perfect, we should think that the conclusion is probably, but not definitely, true. If we re faced with arguments for competing positions, we should believe the position supported by the strongest arguments. Recognizing, Analyzing, and Evaluating Arguments in Real Life Unless an argument is particularly long, difficult, or important, we ll probably end up doing much of the analysis and evaluating mentally instead of on paper. We can do this by: identifying the ultimate conclusion of the argument, determining what other ideas are important, determining how these ideas relate to each other in the argument (e.g. how many lines of reasoning there are, where the inferences are, which reasons are dependent, and so on),

8 8 assessing the premises and inferences. IV. ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION 1. Determine the ultimate conclusion We determine our ultimate conclusion by posing a question, considering various answers to the question, learning and thinking more about the issues involved, and formulating our answer to the question. The answer we settle on will be the ultimate conclusion of our argument. 2. Construct the chain of reasoning We construct our chain of reasoning by asking What are some reasons to think this idea is true? Once we have some ideas down, we diagram our argument by determining what argumentative role we intend each of each of these ideas to serve, deciding how we want our inferences to run, and then diagramming our argument. We evaluate this chain of reasoning by first assessing the inferences. If an inference is weak, can we repair it by adding a dependent reason to plug the gap. We can use the tests for dependent reasons to find the dependent reason needed to strengthen an inference however, we should add the dependent reasons necessary to perfect an inference in our argument only if the original inference was sufficiently weak to justify the additional complexity involved in supplying the extra ideas. After we ve repaired our inferences, we assess our premises. If a premise isn t true, we change it to something that is. If a premise is true but might not be acceptable to the argument s audience, we make the premise a subconclusion by asking What are some reasons to think that this idea is true? and returning to the beginning. We then evaluate the new inferences, and new premises, repeating the process until our argument is good. In order to supply independent lines of reasoning for an argument of our own, we recognize the theme of the argument we ve already constructed and try to construct and argument of a completely different type to support the conclusion at hand. 3. Communicate the argument The passage containing our argument should be well written and easy to diagram.

9 9 General Writing Advice Word Choice: We should use our working vocabulary, and we should avoid specialized terminology like ultimate conclusion, subconclusion, premises, or inference. Sentence Structure: We should use complete sentences; in particular, we should make sure that all of our simple sentences have a subject and predicate and that all of our connectives in our compound sentences are connecting smaller complete sentences. Sentence Variation: If we wish, we can use unimportant statements to set the stage for our argument, and express some important ideas as statement questions, statement commands and masking statements. We can add some normal question or command sentences for rhetorical flourish. Placement of the Ultimate Conclusion: If we decide to state the ultimate conclusion, we should generally put the ultimate conclusion near the beginning of the argument, unless it s controversial, in which case we should put it near the end of the argument. We may put our conclusion near the middle of a passage, as long as we put it between independent lines of reasoning. Placement of the Other Ideas: To make our argument as easy as possible to diagram, the proximity of the ideas in our passage should reflect the proximity of the ideas in the diagram. We may repeat ideas, if this will help our reader to understand how these ideas work together. Leaving Conclusions Unstated: We can leave a subconclusion unstated if it s pretty obvious, given the reasons from which it comes, and the inference that uses the two parent reasons instead of the subconclusion is not much harder to follow than the inference that uses the missing subconclusion. We can leave our ultimate conclusion unstated if it s pretty obvious, given the reasons from which it comes, and if we believe that it would be more persuasive to allow our readers to draw this conclusion themselves. Highlighting Inferences: We should use inference indicator expressions to make the argument easier to understand whenever we think that an inference would be hard to recognize without them and we should write the argument vertically, up and down the arrows, rather than horizontally. Highlighting Independent Lines of Reasoning: If our argument has independent lines of reasoning, we should take care to help our readers to individuate them.

CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK

CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK 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

More information

Basic Concepts and Skills!

Basic Concepts and Skills! Basic Concepts and Skills! Critical Thinking tests rationales,! i.e., reasons connected to conclusions by justifying or explaining principles! Why do CT?! Answer: Opinions without logical or evidential

More information

4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity

4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity 4. Proofs 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity Given that we can test an argument for validity, it might seem that we have a fully developed system to study arguments. However, there

More information

Instructor s Manual 1

Instructor s Manual 1 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

More information

SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question.

SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question. 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

More information

INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms 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

More information

Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University

Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University 2012 CONTENTS Part I Critical Thinking Chapter 1 Basic Training 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Logic, Propositions and Arguments 1.3 Deduction and Induction

More information

Chapter 8 - Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms

Chapter 8 - Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall Stetson University Chapter 8 - Sentential ruth ables and Argument orms 8.1 Introduction he truth-value of a given truth-functional compound proposition depends

More information

Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism

Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning................... 3 1.1.1 Strong Syllogism......................... 3 1.1.2 Weak Syllogism.......................... 4 1.1.3 Transitivity

More information

A short introduction to formal logic

A short introduction to formal logic A short introduction to formal logic Dan Hicks v0.3.2, July 20, 2012 Thanks to Tim Pawl and my Fall 2011 Intro to Philosophy students for feedback on earlier versions. My approach to teaching logic has

More information

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments 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

More information

PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1. W# Section (10 or 11) 4. T F The statements that compose a disjunction are called conjuncts.

PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1. W# Section (10 or 11) 4. T F The statements that compose a disjunction are called conjuncts. PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1 W# Section (10 or 11) 1. True or False (5 points) Directions: Circle the letter next to the best answer. 1. T F All true statements are valid. 2. T

More information

THE FREGE-GEACH PROBLEM AND KALDERON S MORAL FICTIONALISM. Matti Eklund Cornell University

THE FREGE-GEACH PROBLEM AND KALDERON S MORAL FICTIONALISM. Matti Eklund Cornell University THE FREGE-GEACH PROBLEM AND KALDERON S MORAL FICTIONALISM Matti Eklund Cornell University [me72@cornell.edu] Penultimate draft. Final version forthcoming in Philosophical Quarterly I. INTRODUCTION In his

More information

Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 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

More information

In view of the fact that IN CLASS LOGIC EXERCISES

In view of the fact that IN CLASS LOGIC EXERCISES IN CLASS LOGIC EXERCISES Instructions: Determine whether the following are propositions. If some are not propositions, see if they can be rewritten as propositions. (1) I have a very refined sense of smell.

More information

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?

What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this? 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.

More information

b) The meaning of "child" would need to be taken in the sense of age, as most people would find the idea of a young child going to jail as wrong.

b) The meaning of child would need to be taken in the sense of age, as most people would find the idea of a young child going to jail as wrong. 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

More information

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS 0. Logic, Probability, and Formal Structure Logic is often divided into two distinct areas, inductive logic and deductive logic. Inductive logic is concerned

More information

Test Item File. Full file at

Test Item File. Full file at Test Item File 107 CHAPTER 1 Chapter 1: Basic Logical Concepts Multiple Choice 1. In which of the following subjects is reasoning outside the concern of logicians? A) science and medicine B) ethics C)

More information

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions 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

More information

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

More information

Chapter 9- Sentential Proofs

Chapter 9- Sentential Proofs 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.

More information

Suppressed premises in real life. Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3 & Some Exercises

Suppressed premises in real life. Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3 & Some Exercises 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

More information

Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan

Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: Jonathan Chan A03.1 Introduction Tutorial A03: Patterns of Valid Arguments By: With valid arguments, it is impossible to have a false conclusion if the premises are all true. Obviously valid arguments play a very important

More information

Introduction to Logic

Introduction to Logic University of Notre Dame Fall, 2015 Arguments Philosophy is difficult. If questions are easy to decide, they usually don t end up in philosophy The easiest way to proceed on difficult questions is to formulate

More information

Testing semantic sequents with truth tables

Testing semantic sequents with truth tables Testing semantic sequents with truth tables Marianne: Hi. I m Marianne Talbot and in this video we are going to look at testing semantic sequents with truth tables. (Slide 2) This video supplements Session

More information

Lecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman

Lecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman Lecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman 2 Is this a valid argument? Assumptions: If the races are fixed or the gambling houses are crooked, then the tourist trade will decline. If the tourist trade declines

More information

A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November

A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November 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

More information

Responses to the sorites paradox

Responses to the sorites paradox Responses to the sorites paradox phil 20229 Jeff Speaks April 21, 2008 1 Rejecting the initial premise: nihilism....................... 1 2 Rejecting one or more of the other premises....................

More information

What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For?

What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For? PY114: Work Obscenely Hard Week 9 (Meeting 7) 30 November, 2010 What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For? 0. Business Matters: The last marked homework of term will be due on Monday, 6 December, at

More information

1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview

1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview 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

More information

3.3. Negations as premises Overview

3.3. Negations as premises Overview 3.3. Negations as premises 3.3.0. Overview A second group of rules for negation interchanges the roles of an affirmative sentence and its negation. 3.3.1. Indirect proof The basic principles for negation

More information

Think by Simon Blackburn. Chapter 1b Knowledge

Think by Simon Blackburn. Chapter 1b Knowledge Think by Simon Blackburn Chapter 1b Knowledge According to A.C. Grayling, if cogito ergo sum is an argument, it is missing a premise. This premise is: A. Everything that exists thinks. B. Everything that

More information

Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan. Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Part-Whole Relations

Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan. Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Part-Whole Relations CRITICAL THINKING Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Edited by Andrew Brennan LECTURE 8! Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, and Part-Whole Relations Summary In this lecture, we will learn three more

More information

Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness

Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness 1 Goals Today Introduce one of our central topics: validity and soundness, and its connection to one of our primary course goals, namely: learning how to evaluate arguments

More information

An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori. Ralph Wedgwood

An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori. Ralph Wedgwood An Inferentialist Conception of the A Priori Ralph Wedgwood When philosophers explain the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori, they usually characterize the a priori negatively, as involving

More information

Philosophical Arguments

Philosophical Arguments Philosophical Arguments An introduction to logic and philosophical reasoning. Nathan D. Smith, PhD. Houston Community College Nathan D. Smith. Some rights reserved You are free to copy this book, to distribute

More information

Elements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements. Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010

Elements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements. Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010 Elements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010 1 Why cover statements and arguments Decision making (whether in science or elsewhere)

More information

Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI

Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI Precising definition Theoretical definition Persuasive definition Syntactic definition Operational definition 1. Are questions about defining a phrase

More information

Ayer and Quine on the a priori

Ayer and Quine on the a priori Ayer and Quine on the a priori November 23, 2004 1 The problem of a priori knowledge Ayer s book is a defense of a thoroughgoing empiricism, not only about what is required for a belief to be justified

More information

PHIL 115: Philosophical Anthropology. I. Propositional Forms (in Stoic Logic) Lecture #4: Stoic Logic

PHIL 115: Philosophical Anthropology. I. Propositional Forms (in Stoic Logic) Lecture #4: Stoic Logic HIL 115: hilosophical Anthropology Lecture #4: Stoic Logic Arguments from the Euthyphro: Meletus Argument (according to Socrates) [3a-b] Argument: Socrates is a maker of gods; so, Socrates corrupts the

More information

Exercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014

Exercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 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

More information

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness 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 ------------.

More information

Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1

Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1 Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1 Leibniz was a man of principles. 2 Throughout his writings, one finds repeated assertions that his view is developed according to certain fundamental principles. Attempting

More information

A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

A Brief Introduction to Key Terms 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,

More information

Helpful Hints for doing Philosophy Papers (Spring 2000)

Helpful Hints for doing Philosophy Papers (Spring 2000) 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

More information

Introducing truth tables. Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts.

Introducing truth tables. Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts. Introducing truth tables Marianne: Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts. Okay, introducing truth tables. (Slide 2) This video supplements

More information

Some Templates for Beginners: Template Option 1 I am analyzing A in order to argue B. An important element of B is C. C is significant because.

Some Templates for Beginners: Template Option 1 I am analyzing A in order to argue B. An important element of B is C. C is significant because. Common Topics for Literary and Cultural Analysis: What kinds of topics are good ones? The best topics are ones that originate out of your own reading of a work of literature. Here are some common approaches

More information

An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics

An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truth-theoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.

More information

HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ

HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ HAVE WE REASON TO DO AS RATIONALITY REQUIRES? A COMMENT ON RAZ BY JOHN BROOME JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM I DECEMBER 2005 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JOHN BROOME 2005 HAVE WE REASON

More information

Logicola Truth Evaluation Exercises

Logicola Truth Evaluation Exercises Logicola Truth Evaluation Exercises The Logicola exercises for Ch. 6.3 concern truth evaluations, and in 6.4 this complicated to include unknown evaluations. I wanted to say a couple of things for those

More information

II Plenary discussion of Expertise and the Global Warming debate.

II Plenary discussion of Expertise and the Global Warming debate. Thinking Straight Critical Reasoning WS 9-1 May 27, 2008 I. A. (Individually ) review and mark the answers for the assignment given on the last pages: (two points each for reconstruction and evaluation,

More information

The Little Logic Book Hardy, Ratzsch, Konyndyk De Young and Mellema The Calvin College Press, 2013

The Little Logic Book Hardy, Ratzsch, Konyndyk De Young and Mellema The Calvin College Press, 2013 The Little Logic Book Hardy, Ratzsch, Konyndyk De Young and Mellema The Calvin College Press, 2013 Exercises for The Little Logic Book may be downloaded by the instructor as Word documents and then modified

More information

Wright on response-dependence and self-knowledge

Wright on response-dependence and self-knowledge Wright on response-dependence and self-knowledge March 23, 2004 1 Response-dependent and response-independent concepts........... 1 1.1 The intuitive distinction......................... 1 1.2 Basic equations

More information

BOOK REVIEW. Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2nd edn, 2011). xv pp. Pbk. US$13.78.

BOOK REVIEW. Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2nd edn, 2011). xv pp. Pbk. US$13.78. [JGRChJ 9 (2011 12) R12-R17] BOOK REVIEW Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2nd edn, 2011). xv + 166 pp. Pbk. US$13.78. Thomas Schreiner is Professor

More information

Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model

Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy 219 Denying the Antecedent as a Legitimate Argumentative Strategy: A Dialectical Model DAVID M. GODDEN DOUGLAS WALTON University of Windsor

More information

Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori

Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in

More information

In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006

In Defense of Radical Empiricism. Joseph Benjamin Riegel. Chapel Hill 2006 In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

More information

TWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW

TWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW DISCUSSION NOTE BY CAMPBELL BROWN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE MAY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT CAMPBELL BROWN 2015 Two Versions of Hume s Law MORAL CONCLUSIONS CANNOT VALIDLY

More information

Intuition as Philosophical Evidence

Intuition as Philosophical Evidence Essays in Philosophy Volume 13 Issue 1 Philosophical Methodology Article 17 January 2012 Intuition as Philosophical Evidence Federico Mathías Pailos University of Buenos Aires Follow this and additional

More information

Exploring Possibilities

Exploring Possibilities Exploring Possibilities Thanissaro Bhikkhu July 25, 2004 When you meditate, you re exploring. You re not trying to program the mind in line with somebody else s notions of what it has to do. You re exploring

More information

Today s Lecture 1/28/10

Today s Lecture 1/28/10 Chapter 7.1! Symbolizing English Arguments! 5 Important Logical Operators!The Main Logical Operator Today s Lecture 1/28/10 Quiz State from memory (closed book and notes) the five famous valid forms and

More information

Faults and Mathematical Disagreement

Faults and Mathematical Disagreement 45 Faults and Mathematical Disagreement María Ponte ILCLI. University of the Basque Country mariaponteazca@gmail.com Abstract: My aim in this paper is to analyse the notion of mathematical disagreements

More information

CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS

CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS Fall 2001 ENGLISH 20 Professor Tanaka CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS In this first handout, I would like to simply give you the basic outlines of our critical thinking model

More information

Unit 4. Reason as a way of knowing. Tuesday, March 4, 14

Unit 4. Reason as a way of knowing. Tuesday, March 4, 14 Unit 4 Reason as a way of knowing I. Reasoning At its core, reasoning is using what is known as building blocks to create new knowledge I use the words logic and reasoning interchangeably. Technically,

More information

Conditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid?

Conditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid? Conditionals IV: Is Modus Ponens Valid? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 The intuitive counterexamples McGee [2] offers these intuitive counterexamples to Modus Ponens: 1. (a)

More information

G.E. Moore A Refutation of Skepticism

G.E. Moore A Refutation of Skepticism G.E. Moore A Refutation of Skepticism The Argument For Skepticism 1. If you do not know that you are not merely a brain in a vat, then you do not even know that you have hands. 2. You do not know that

More information

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT What does it mean to provide an argument for a statement? To provide an argument for a statement is an activity we carry out both in our everyday lives and within the sciences. We provide arguments for

More information

Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body

Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body Jeff Speaks April 13, 2005 At pp. 144 ff., Kripke turns his attention to the mind-body problem. The discussion here brings to bear many of the results

More information

Ethical Consistency and the Logic of Ought

Ethical Consistency and the Logic of Ought Ethical Consistency and the Logic of Ought Mathieu Beirlaen Ghent University In Ethical Consistency, Bernard Williams vindicated the possibility of moral conflicts; he proposed to consistently allow for

More information

Truth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Truth and Molinism * Trenton Merricks. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate edited by Ken Perszyk. Oxford University Press, 2011. 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

More information

A Semantic Paradox concerning Error Theory

A Semantic Paradox concerning Error Theory Aporia vol. 26 no. 1 2016 A Semantic Paradox concerning Error Theory Stephen Harrop J. L. Mackie famously argued for a moral error theory that is, the thesis that our statements concerning objective moral

More information

3. Negations Not: contradicting content Contradictory propositions Overview Connectives

3. Negations Not: contradicting content Contradictory propositions Overview Connectives 3. Negations 3.1. Not: contradicting content 3.1.0. Overview In this chapter, we direct our attention to negation, the second of the logical forms we will consider. 3.1.1. Connectives Negation is a way

More information

Russell: On Denoting

Russell: On Denoting Russell: On Denoting DENOTING PHRASES Russell includes all kinds of quantified subject phrases ( a man, every man, some man etc.) but his main interest is in definite descriptions: the present King of

More information

What is Direction of Fit?

What is Direction of Fit? What is Direction of Fit? AVERY ARCHER ABSTRACT: I argue that the concept of direction of fit is best seen as picking out a certain logical property of a psychological attitude: namely, the fact that it

More information

The Problem of Evil. Prof. Eden Lin The Ohio State University

The Problem of Evil. Prof. Eden Lin The Ohio State University The Problem of Evil Prof. Eden Lin The Ohio State University Where We Are You have considered some questions about the nature of God: What does it mean for God to be omnipotent? Does God s omniscience

More information

Subjective Logic: Logic as Rational Belief Dynamics. Richard Johns Department of Philosophy, UBC

Subjective Logic: Logic as Rational Belief Dynamics. Richard Johns Department of Philosophy, UBC Subjective Logic: Logic as Rational Belief Dynamics Richard Johns Department of Philosophy, UBC johns@interchange.ubc.ca May 8, 2004 What I m calling Subjective Logic is a new approach to logic. Fundamentally

More information

Stedman Triples. Oxford Diocesan Guild Michaelmas Training Day 2012 Course Notes. Tutor John Harrison. Contents

Stedman Triples. Oxford Diocesan Guild Michaelmas Training Day 2012 Course Notes. Tutor John Harrison. Contents Oxford Diocesan Guild Michaelmas Training Day 202 Course Notes Stedman Triples Tutor John arrison Contents Introduction 2 8 Fitting together 4 2 Starting point for Stedman Triples 2 9 Structure of calls

More information

Constructing the World

Constructing the World Constructing the World Lecture 1: A Scrutable World David Chalmers Plan *1. Laplace s demon 2. Primitive concepts and the Aufbau 3. Problems for the Aufbau 4. The scrutability base 5. Applications Laplace

More information

Handout 1: Arguments -- the basics because, since, given that, for because Given that Since for Because

Handout 1: Arguments -- the basics because, since, given that, for because Given that Since for Because Handout 1: Arguments -- the basics It is useful to think of an argument as a list of sentences.[1] The last sentence is the conclusion, and the other sentences are the premises. Thus: (1) No professors

More information

Quantificational logic and empty names

Quantificational logic and empty names Quantificational logic and empty names Andrew Bacon 26th of March 2013 1 A Puzzle For Classical Quantificational Theory Empty Names: Consider the sentence 1. There is something identical to Pegasus On

More information

Revisiting the Socrates Example

Revisiting the Socrates Example Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified

More information

The Logic of Confusion. Remarks on Joseph Camp s Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge. John MacFarlane (University of California, Berkeley)

The Logic of Confusion. Remarks on Joseph Camp s Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge. John MacFarlane (University of California, Berkeley) The Logic of Confusion Remarks on Joseph Camp s Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge John MacFarlane (University of California, Berkeley) Because I am color blind, I routinely wear mismatched

More information

Today we begin our discussion of the existence of God.

Today we begin our discussion of the existence of God. Aquinas Five Ways Today we begin our discussion of the existence of God. The main philosophical problem about the existence of God can be put like this: is it possible to provide good arguments either

More information

Intro. First-Order Necessity and Validity. First Order Attention. First Order Attention

Intro. First-Order Necessity and Validity. First Order Attention. First Order Attention Intro Mark Criley IWU 10/23/2015 We have added some new pieces to our language: Quantifiers and variables. These new pieces are going to add a new layer of NPEC: Necessity, Possibility, Equivalence, Consequence.

More information

Denying the Antecedent: Its Effective Use in Argumentation

Denying the Antecedent: Its Effective Use in Argumentation Denying the Antecedent: Its Effective Use in Argumentation MARK STONE Department of Philosophy Furman University Greenville, SC 29613 mark.stone@furman.edu Abstract: Denying the antecedent is an invalid

More information

Practical Conditionals

Practical Conditionals Practical Conditionals Jamie Dreier This is a very drafty draft, so please don t cite it. Introduction Sometimes we are under conditional requirements to do things. We can express them like this: If p,

More information

5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments

5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments 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

More information

Believing Epistemic Contradictions

Believing Epistemic Contradictions Believing Epistemic Contradictions Bob Beddor & Simon Goldstein Bridges 2 2015 Outline 1 The Puzzle 2 Defending Our Principles 3 Troubles for the Classical Semantics 4 Troubles for Non-Classical Semantics

More information

John Hawthorne s Knowledge and Lotteries

John Hawthorne s Knowledge and Lotteries John Hawthorne s Knowledge and Lotteries Chapter 1: Introducing the Puzzle 1.1: A Puzzle 1. S knows that S won t have enough money to go on a safari this year. 2. If S knows that S won t have enough money

More information

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers Exercises Argument Forms I For each of the following arguments, determine the form of the inference and decide whether or not the inference is valid. ).

More information

1 EVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

1 EVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE 1 EVALUATING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE In this paper, we study something called corroborative evidence. A typical example would be a case where a witness saw the accused leaving a crime scene, and physical

More information

15. Russell on definite descriptions

15. Russell on definite descriptions 15. Russell on definite descriptions Martín Abreu Zavaleta July 30, 2015 Russell was another top logician and philosopher of his time. Like Frege, Russell got interested in denotational expressions as

More information

Russell on Descriptions

Russell on Descriptions Russell on Descriptions Bertrand Russell s analysis of descriptions is certainly one of the most famous (perhaps the most famous) theories in philosophy not just philosophy of language over the last century.

More information

Did Jesus Commit a Fallacy?

Did Jesus Commit a Fallacy? Did Jesus Commit a Fallacy? DAVID HITCHCOCK McMaster University Key Words: Argument, fallacy, denying the antecedent. Abstract: Jesus has been accused of committing a fallacy (of denying the antecedent)

More information

What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece

What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 Pan-Hellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece Outline of this Talk 1. What is the nature of logic? Some history

More information

DIVIDED WE FALL Fission and the Failure of Self-Interest 1. Jacob Ross University of Southern California

DIVIDED WE FALL Fission and the Failure of Self-Interest 1. Jacob Ross University of Southern California Philosophical Perspectives, 28, Ethics, 2014 DIVIDED WE FALL Fission and the Failure of Self-Interest 1 Jacob Ross University of Southern California Fission cases, in which one person appears to divide

More information

The view can concede that there are principled necessary conditions or principled sufficient conditions, or both; just no principled dichotomy.

The view can concede that there are principled necessary conditions or principled sufficient conditions, or both; just no principled dichotomy. Pluralism in Logic Hartry Field New York University Abstract: A number of people have proposed that we should be pluralists about logic, but there are a number of things this can mean. Are there versions

More information

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011 The Ontological Argument for the existence of God Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011 The ontological argument (henceforth, O.A.) for the existence of God has a long

More information

CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE. What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior.

CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE. What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior. Logos Ethos Pathos Chapter 13 CHAPTER 13: UNDERSTANDING PERSUASIVE What is persuasion: process of influencing people s belief, attitude, values or behavior. Persuasive speaking: process of doing so in

More information