# HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 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 statements if we want to convince someone of their truth. We provide arguments in order to justify a belief that we take to be true; and we provide arguments in order to get to know the consequences of actions and events, i.e. in order to examine the consequences following from certain basic assumptions. We use arguments in many different contexts we find ourselves in, for instance if we want to show how general laws apply to singular cases, if we want to explain the phenomena of nature, or if we want to give a mathematical proof. 1 Providing arguments for statements is an activity that is undertaken for a rhetorical purpose, namely for the purpose of finding out whether the statement is true or for the purpose of convincing another person of the truth of this statement. We come across arguments both in spoken and written language, in what people say and in what they have written. When we provide arguments for the truth of a statement, we make use of a language (spoken or written). If we want to convince a person of the truth of a statement by argument, then we better use a language that both we and the person we address speak and understand. What is an argument? An argument is a sequence of propositions. However, not every sequence of propositions is an argument. A sequence of propositions is an argument if and only if the last proposition of the sequence, the conclusion of the argument, is related to the preceding propositions, the premises of the argument, in a certain way. Deductive and inductive arguments We distinguish between deductive arguments on the one hand and inductive arguments on the other. The distinction concerns the way in which the premises of an argument are related to its conclusion. 1 Quoted after Axel Bühler, Einführung in die Logik. Argumentation und Folgerung. Freiburg/München 1992, p. 11/2. 1

2 Deductive arguments An argument is deductive if and only if its conclusion is logically deducible from the conjunction of its premises. The conjunction of the premises is the connection of these premises by and. (There are arguments with only one premise. The logic of such arguments does not differ from the logic of more complex arguments, i.e. those that have more than one premise.) What does it mean to say that a conclusion is logically deducible from a conjunction of premises? A conclusion is logically deducible from a conjunction of premises if and only if the truth of all premises (i.e. the truth of the conjunction of premises) guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A deductive argument consists of a conjunction of premises and a conclusion, such that if the premises are all true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Here is an example of a deductive argument: All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Socrates is mortal. (1. premise) (2. premise) (Conclusion) We have to distinguish between the logical correctness or validity of a deductive argument on the one hand and the truth of its premises and its conclusion on the other. Logical correctness or validity is a property of a deductive argument and concerns the inferential relationship between a conjunction of premises and a conclusion: the inference from the premises to the conclusion is valid. Truth on the other hand is a property of a proposition. The example given above is an example of a valid argument of which all premises are true. Examples of logical forms of deductive arguments: (Pn = Premise number, C = Conclusion) Syllogism Barbara P1: All humans are mortal. P2: Socrates is human. p C: Socrates is mortal. Transitivity of Implication P1: All cats are mammals. P2: All mammals are animals. P3: All animals are creatures of God. C: All cats are creatures of God. Modus Ponens P1: If it rains, then the ground is wet. P2: It rains. l C: The ground is wet. Modus Tollens P1: If it rains, then the ground is wet. P2: The ground is not wet. l C: It does not rain. This is just a small selection of examples of logical forms of deductive arguments. As the premises of these arguments are true, these are all valid arguments. 2

3 Inductive Arguments Inductive arguments, unlike deductive arguments, provide conclusions whose content exceeds that of their premises. To do this, inductive arguments must sacrifice the necessity of deductive arguments. even though we cannot guarantee that the conclusion of an inductive argument is true if the premises are true, still, the premises of a correct inductive argument do support or lend weight to the conclusion. among correct inductive arguments there are degrees of strength or support. The premises of a correct inductive argument may render the conclusion extremely probable, moderately probable, or probable to some extent. Consequently, the premises of a correct inductive argument, if true, constitute reasons, of some degree of strength, for accepting the conclusion. The degree of support of the conclusion by the premises of an inductive argument can be increased or decreased by additional evidence in the form of additional premises. it is a general characteristic of inductive arguments, that additional evidence may be relevant to the degree to which the conclusion is supported. 2 An example of an inductive argument: By far the simplest type of an inductive argument is induction by enumeration. In arguments of this type, a conclusion about all of the members of the class is drawn from premises that refer to observed members of that class. Suppose we have a barrel of coffee beans. After mixing them up, we remove a sample of beans, taking parts of the sample from different parts of the barrel. Upon examination, the beans in the sample are all found to be grade A. We then conclude that all of the beans in the barrel are grade A. 3 P: All beans in the observed sample from the barrel B are grade A. K: All beans in the barrel B are grade A. 2 Quoted from Wesley C. Salmon, Logic. 3 rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1984 (Prentice-Hall), p Quoted from Wesley C. Salmon, Logic. 3 rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1984 (Prentice-Hall), p

4 Fallacies Deductive Fallacies Some sequences of propositions rhetorically pretend to provide a deductive argument for the truth of a certain proposition (by using conjunctions like therefore, because, as, if... then for example) but fail to do so because the proposition that is supposed to be the conclusion is not logically deducible from the propositions that are supposed to function as premises. Such sequences of propositions are deductive fallacies. Here are a few examples of logical forms of deductive fallacies: Affirming the Consequent P1: If it rains, then the ground is wet. P2: The ground is wet. p K: It rains. Denying the Antecedent P1: If I am in Oslo, then I am in Norway. P2: I am not in Oslo. l K: I am not in Norway. None of these sequences of sentences provides an argument as the conjunction of the so-called premises can be true even though the so-called conclusion is false. Both If it rains, then the ground is wet and The ground is wet can be true even though it does not rain (there can be another reason for the ground being wet). And even if If I am in Oslo, then I am in Norway, and I am not in Oslo are both true, it is fully possible that I am in Norway; I can be in Bergen for example. These sequences of sentences are pseudo-arguments or fallacies; their rhetoric somehow tries to imitate the rhetoric of real arguments. Inductive Fallacies There are certain premises that can render inductive arguments either absolutely or practically worthless. We shall refer to these errors as inductive fallacies. If an inductive argument is fallacious, its premises do not support its conclusion. 4 Here is an example for an inductive fallacy: Insufficient statistics P1: All swans observed in Europe are white. K: All swans are white. What makes the argument fallacious is the fact that there are black swans in Australia. The observational basis for the conclusion is insufficient. The inductive generalization has been made before enough data had been accumulated. 4 Quoted from Wesley C. Salmon, Logic. 3 rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1984 (Prentice-Hall), p

5 How to Justify a Proposition by way of Deduction How do we have to proceed in order to justify a proposition p deductively, that is in order to show that p is true? We have to provide a deductive argument for the truth of p. In order to do so we have to proceed in two steps: First, we have to indicate a sequence of propositions from which the proposition p is logically deducible. Second, we have to show that all the propositions of this sequence are true. How to Test Sequences of Propositions that Claim to Provide a Deductive Argument What do we have to do in order to test whether a sequence of propositions actually provides a valid deductive argument for a certain proposition, i.e. in order to find out whether the sequence of propositions convinces us of the truth of a certain proposition? The first step is to test whether the sequence of propositions provides an argument or whether it is no more than a fallacy. If it provides a valid inference from the premises to the conclusion, if it is logically correct, then it does indeed provide an argument, then the proposition which is meant to be the conclusion follows logically from the propositions that are meant to function as premises. In order to go for this first step, we have to analyze the logical form of the sequence of sentences. Often, it is not easy to recognize the logical form of a deductive argument brought forth in a text spoken or written in a natural language. The art of analyzing arguments presented in a natural language is above all the art of recognizing a certain logical form in a sequence of sentences. The second step is to test whether the premises of the deductive argument actually are true. If these premises are true, the conjunction of these premises is true, and then the conclusion is true as well. In most cases we cannot decide whether a proposition that functions as a premise in an argument is true or false by a simple analysis of its logical form; we must instead check whether the proposition corresponds to the facts in the real world or not. First step The first step of an analysis of the logical form of a sequence of sentences claiming to provide a deductive argument leads to one of two possible results: Either the sequence of sentences does indeed provide a deductive argument, the inference from the premises to the conclusion is logically correct or valid; or the sequence of sentences does not provide a deductive argument, it is a pseudoargument. In the first case we can go right from the first to the second step of the analysis of the argument. In the second case there are two possibilities of how to proceed: Either we leave it there and stay with the diagnosis of a fallacy. We simply conclude that the sequence of sentences claiming to provide an argument does not provide any valid 5

6 inference to the proposition that was meant to be its conclusion. Or we try (bearing in mind the principle of charity) to transform the fallacy into a valid deductive argument, for example by adding further propositions as premises. If we succeed to provide a valid inference from the premises to the conclusion, we must continue with the second step. Second Step The test of the truth value of the premises of an argument again leads to one of two possible results: Either all the premises actually are true and therefore the conjunction of these premises is true as well. Or not all of the premises are true (at least one of these premises is false); in this case the conjunction of the premises is false. In the first case we can infer the truth of the conclusion. In the second case we have to admit that the argument (despite its logical correctness!) is not suited to convince us of the truth of its conclusion. Please note: A logically correct or valid deductive argument of which some premises are false does not allow for any inference concerning the truth value of its conclusion. The following three arguments are examples of logically correct arguments (syllogismes of the form Barbara : All A are B, this C is an A. Thus this C is a B.) (1) All humans are immortal. Socrates is human. Socrates is immortal. (2) All humans are wise. Alle primates are human. Alle primates are wise. (3) All senators are old. All over 80 are senators. Alle over 80 are old. Here the first premise is false, the other true, but the conclusion is false. Here both the premises as well as the conclusion are false. Here both premises are false, while the conclusion is true. Always keep in mind the distinction between the logical correctness or validity of a deductive argument on the one hand and the truth of the propositions which function as its premises on the other. Common language does not always make this distinction. Make the distinction a part of your own use of language! 5 5 Further reading: Wesley C. Salmon, Logic. 3 rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey The logic of induction is a complicated matter. Those interested in the debate may start with Nelson Goodman s Riddle of Induction ; see Nelson Goodman, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge/mass. And London/England, 1 st edition 1979 (Harvard University Press), chapter III. 6

### Philosophy 1100: Ethics

Philosophy 1100: Ethics Topic 1 - Course Introduction: 1. What is Philosophy? 2. What is Ethics? 3. Logic a. Truth b. Arguments c. Validity d. Soundness What is Philosophy? The Three Fundamental Questions

### 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 ------------.

### Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.

### Relevance. Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true

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

### Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,

### 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

### 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

### Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test

Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test In the Introduction, I stated that the basic underlying problem with forensic doctors is so easy to understand that even a twelve-year-old could understand

### 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

### PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES

PHIL2642 CRITICAL THINKING USYD NOTES PART 1: LECTURE NOTES LECTURE CONTENTS LECTURE 1: CLAIMS, EXPLAINATIONS AND ARGUMENTS LECTURE 2: CONDITIONS AND DEDUCTION LECTURE 3: MORE DEDUCTION LECTURE 4: MEANING

### 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

### Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic

Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 Propositions A proposition is a statement that can be true or false. Propositions are sometimes called

### Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

1 REASONING Reasoning is, broadly speaking, the cognitive process of establishing reasons to justify beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings. It also refers, more specifically, to the act or process

### 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

### MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic

MPS 17 The Structure of Persuasion Logos: reasoning, reasons, good reasons not necessarily about formal logic Making and Refuting Arguments Steps of an Argument You make a claim The conclusion of your

### CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument General Overview: As our students often attest, we all live in a complex world filled with demanding issues and bewildering challenges. In order to determine those

### Lecture 2.1 INTRO TO LOGIC/ ARGUMENTS. Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people s claims).

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

### 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

### PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

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

### Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church September 8, 2011

Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church http://www.fbcweb.org/doctrines.html September 8, 2011 Building Mental Muscle & Growing the Mind through Logic Exercises: Lesson 4a The Three Acts of the

### Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference

1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

### 1.6 Validity and Truth

M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 30 30 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts deductive arguments about probabilities themselves, in which the probability of a certain combination of events is

### LOGIC LECTURE #3: DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION. Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11 th Ed. (Patrick Hurley, 2012)

LOGIC LECTURE #3: DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 11 th Ed. (Patrick Hurley, 2012) Deductive Vs. Inductive If the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty

### 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

### Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Russell Marcus Hamilton College, Fall 2013 Class 1 - Introduction to Introduction to Philosophy My name is Russell. My office is 202 College Hill Road, Room 210.

### A R G U M E N T S I N A C T I O N

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

### Logical (formal) fallacies

Fallacies in academic writing Chad Nilep There are many possible sources of fallacy an idea that is mistakenly thought to be true, even though it may be untrue in academic writing. The phrase logical fallacy

### There are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.

INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds

### Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

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)

### The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism

The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.

### Announcements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order Logic

Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete

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.

### 1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

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.

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 2. Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators

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

### Introducing Our New Faculty

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

### Chapter 1. What is Philosophy? Thinking Philosophically About Life

Chapter 1 What is Philosophy? Thinking Philosophically About Life Why Study Philosophy? Defining Philosophy Studying philosophy in a serious and reflective way will change you as a person Philosophy Is

### 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

### A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary. Jason Zarri. 1. An Easy \$10.00? a 3 c 2. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

A Primer on Logic Part 1: Preliminaries and Vocabulary Jason Zarri 1. An Easy \$10.00? Suppose someone were to bet you \$10.00 that you would fail a seemingly simple test of your reasoning skills. Feeling

### L4: Reasoning. Dani Navarro

L4: Reasoning Dani Navarro Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning Informal reasoning WE talk of man* being the rational animal; and the traditional intellectualist philosophy has always made a great point

### Announcements. CS311H: Discrete Mathematics. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Satisfiability, Validity in FOL. Example.

Announcements CS311H: Discrete Mathematics First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Instructor: Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now! Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Wednesday Instructor:

### 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

### CONTENTS A SYSTEM OF LOGIC

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION NOTE ON THE TEXT. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY XV xlix I /' ~, r ' o>

### Module 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur

Module 5 Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Lesson 12 Propositional Logic inference rules 5.5 Rules of Inference Here are some examples of sound rules of inference. Each can be shown

### Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE

Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE If you are searching for a book Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic by R.A. Neidorf in pdf format, in that case you come on to the correct website.

### Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

Unit 8 Categorical yllogism What is a syllogism? Inference or reasoning is the process of passing from one or more propositions to another with some justification. This inference when expressed in language

### Three Kinds of Arguments

Chapter 27 Three Kinds of Arguments Arguments in general We ve been focusing on Moleculan-analyzable arguments for several chapters, but now we want to take a step back and look at the big picture, at

### Can A Priori Justified Belief Be Extended Through Deduction? It is often assumed that if one deduces some proposition p from some premises

Can A Priori Justified Belief Be Extended Through Deduction? Introduction It is often assumed that if one deduces some proposition p from some premises which one knows a priori, in a series of individually

### 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

### Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)

UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:

### 1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis

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

### Persuasive Argument Relies heavily on appeals to emotion, to the subconscious, even to bias and prejudice. Characterized by figurative language,

Persuasive Argument Relies heavily on appeals to emotion, to the subconscious, even to bias and prejudice. Characterized by figurative language, rhythmic patterns of speech, etc. Logical Argument Appeals

### Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals

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

### 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

### 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

### Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction

Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment.

### Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

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

### Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture - 03 So in the last

### ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 1.1 What is Logic? Arguments and Propositions

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

### Logic: inductive. Draft: April 29, Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises P1,

Logic: inductive Penultimate version: please cite the entry to appear in: J. Lachs & R. Talisse (eds.), Encyclopedia of American Philosophy. New York: Routledge. Draft: April 29, 2006 Logic is the study

### Critical Thinking is:

Logic: Day 1 Critical Thinking is: Thinking clearly and following rules of logic and rationality It s not being argumentative just for the sake of arguing Academics disagree about which departments do

### Powerful Arguments: Logical Argument Mapping

Georgia Institute of Technology From the SelectedWorks of Michael H.G. Hoffmann 2011 Powerful Arguments: Logical Argument Mapping Michael H.G. Hoffmann, Georgia Institute of Technology - Main Campus Available

### 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.

### 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

### Intro Viewed from a certain angle, philosophy is about what, if anything, we ought to believe.

Overview Philosophy & logic 1.2 What is philosophy? 1.3 nature of philosophy Why philosophy Rules of engagement Punctuality and regularity is of the essence You should be active in class It is good to

### Introduction to Logic

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,

### Thinking and Reasoning

Syllogistic Reasoning Thinking and Reasoning Syllogistic Reasoning Erol ÖZÇELİK The other key type of deductive reasoning is syllogistic reasoning, which is based on the use of syllogisms. Syllogisms are

### Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of

Logic: Inductive Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. The quality of an argument depends on at least two factors: the truth of the

### Academic argument does not mean conflict or competition; an argument is a set of reasons which support, or lead to, a conclusion.

ACADEMIC SKILLS THINKING CRITICALLY In the everyday sense of the word, critical has negative connotations. But at University, Critical Thinking is a positive process of understanding different points of

### Also, in Argument #1 (Lecture 11, Slide 11), the inference from steps 2 and 3 to 4 is stated as:

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

### Critical Thinking 5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments

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

### I. Claim: a concise summary, stated or implied, of an argument s main idea, or point. Many arguments will present multiple claims.

Basics of Argument and Rhetoric Although arguing, speaking our minds, and getting our points across are common activities for most of us, applying specific terminology to these activities may not seem

### VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY

VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY A research paper, discussing the terms and definitions of inductive and deductive logic, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the certificate in Christian Apologetics

### Statements, Arguments, Validity. Philosophy and Logic Unit 1, Sections 1.1, 1.2

Statements, Arguments, Validity Philosophy and Logic Unit 1, Sections 1.1, 1.2 Mayor Willy Brown on proposition 209: There is still rank discrimination in this country. If there is rank discrimination,

### 1 Logical Form and Sentential Logic

338 C H A P T E R 1 1 Logical Form and Sentential Logic A bstracting from the content of an argument reveals the logical form of the argument. The initial sections of this chapter show that logical form

### Broad on Theological Arguments. I. The Ontological Argument

Broad on God Broad on Theological Arguments I. The Ontological Argument Sample Ontological Argument: Suppose that God is the most perfect or most excellent being. Consider two things: (1)An entity that

### 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

### The antecendent always a expresses a sufficient condition for the consequent

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

### Basic Concepts and Distinctions 1 Logic Keith Burgess-Jackson 14 August 2017

Basic Concepts and Distinctions 1 Logic Keith Burgess-Jackson 14 August 2017 Terms in boldface type are defined somewhere in this handout. 1. Logic is the science of implication, or of valid inference

### LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010

LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010 LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH. LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES,

### Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn

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

### 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

### Overview of Today s Lecture

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,

### Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them.

19 Chapter 3 19 CHAPTER 3: Logic Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them. The last proceeding of reason is to recognize

### 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

### But we may go further: not only Jones, but no actual man, enters into my statement. This becomes obvious when the statement is false, since then

CHAPTER XVI DESCRIPTIONS We dealt in the preceding chapter with the words all and some; in this chapter we shall consider the word the in the singular, and in the next chapter we shall consider the word

### T. Parent. I shall explain these steps in turn. Let s consider the following passage to illustrate the process:

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:

### Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments

Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 2 Analyzing Arguments 2.1 Introduction Now that we have gotten our "mental muscles" warmed up, let's see how well we can put our newly

### HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13

1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the

### Aristotle ( ) His scientific thinking, his physics.

Aristotle (384-322) His scientific thinking, his physics. Aristotle: short biography Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many different

### Scientific Method and Research Ethics Questions, Answers, and Evidence. Dr. C. D. McCoy

Scientific Method and Research Ethics 17.09 Questions, Answers, and Evidence Dr. C. D. McCoy Plan for Part 1: Deduction 1. Logic, Arguments, and Inference 1. Questions and Answers 2. Truth, Validity, and

### OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 5

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

### MODUS PONENS AND MODUS TOLLENS: THEIR VALIDITY/INVALIDITY IN NATURAL LANGUAGE ARGUMENTS

STUDIES IN LOGIC, GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC 50(63) 2017 DOI: 10.1515/slgr-2017-0028 Yong-Sok Ri Kim Il Sung University Pyongyang the Democratic People s Republic of Korea MODUS PONENS AND MODUS TOLLENS: THEIR

### 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

### Philosophy of Science. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology

Philosophy of Science Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics

### 1.5 Deductive and Inductive Arguments

M01_COPI1396_13_SE_C01.QXD 10/10/07 9:48 PM Page 26 26 CHAPTER 1 Basic Logical Concepts 19. All ethnic movements are two-edged swords. Beginning benignly, and sometimes necessary to repair injured collective

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

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