I. What is an Argument?

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "I. What is an Argument?"

Transcription

1 I. What is an Argument? In philosophy, an argument is not a dispute or debate, but rather a structured defense of a claim (statement, assertion) about some topic. When making an argument, one does not merely state what they think is a good answer to a particular philosophical question; instead, they explain why it is a good answer to that question, and ideally, why it is a better answer than any alternative views on the matter. To make an argument, one provides at least one reason (stated in the form of sentence as a premise) in support of a claim that is presented as the logical conclusion of one s reasoning. A claim by itself is not an argument. For example, A. Barack Obama is the best president the U.S. has ever had. B. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body. C. Dogs are better pets than cats. are not arguments, but merely claims, since they are not accompanied by any premises which count as reasons to think a conclusion is true. But If we add premises in support of these claims (written in italics), they become arguments: A*. Barack Obama is the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he made affordable healthcare insurance available to all Americans. B*. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body, because the Bible tells us so. C*. Dogs are better pets than cats, since every dog I have ever encountered has been friendly. but not necessarily good arguments. As I will explain further in section II ( Evaluating Arguments ), just because an author has provided a premise in defense of their conclusion doesn t mean that 1) the premise actually does support their claim, or 2) the premise is a philosophically-acceptable type of reason to accept a conclusion. Some authors make it very clear what the premises and conclusion of their argument are, even going to the trouble to label them with numbers, letters, or names, and/or indenting them on separate lines of the paper, so they are easy to identify. For example, here s an excerpt from a former Baruch professor s paper, which uses this strategy (don t worry about what it says or means just how the premises (C+ and R) and conclusion (CR) are presented): So far I have offered evidence for C+, which is the claim that there is a close causal interaction between action and time mechanisms. I also offered an argument for claim R, which is that a close causal relationship between two mechanisms requires representations that have a similar or same representational format. Putting C+ and R together we have an argument: C+: There is a close causal relationship between mechanisms of time perception and action 1

2 R: If two mechanisms closely causally interact then at least some of the representations through which they interact have the same or similar mode of presentation, so as to make them easily translatable. Therefore, CR: At least some of the representations used in action have the same or similar mode of presentation as the mode of presentation used in action preparation and execution. But in other philosophical works, the premises and conclusion might be buried within the author s writing, or not stated very succinctly. Fortunately, authors often signal premises and conclusions with particular key words that come immediately before, which we can call premise-flags and conclusion-flags. Premise-flags: because, since, given that, for (and synonyms of these words) Conclusion-flags: thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, so, consequently Let s look at how this works in some simple sample arguments: Because euthanasia is murder, it is always morally wrong. PREMISE CONCLUSION Affirmative action is right, since it corrects inequality of opportunity. CONCLUSION PREMISE Creationism conflicts with evolution, so it must be false. PREMISE CONCLUSION I pinched myself and felt it, therefore I must not be dreaming right now. PREMISE CONCLUSION When you read philosophy, look out for these words as helpful signals to the structure of the author s argument. It is often helpful to summarize the argument for yourself, by singling out the premises and conclusion and writing them in order. The conventional way to do this is to stack the premises on top of solid line, and write the conclusion underneath (kind of like a math problem, where the numbers you re adding or subtracting go above the line, and the answer goes below). For example: 1. Studying philosophy will improve your critical thinking skills. 2. Good critical thinking will improve your scores on the LSAT, GMAT, GRE, etc. 3. Therefore, if you study philosophy, you will do well on the LSAT etc. The premises, 1 and 2, are listed above the line, and the conclusion they are meant to support, 3, is below the line. Any philosophical work will have a main argument defending the author s central conclusion, which is basically the work s thesis statement. If an author feels that a 2

3 reader may not automatically agree that one of the premises in the main argument is true, or that it is a good kind of premise, they may need to provide an auxiliary argument (an additional, supplementary one) in defense of that premise. Jim Pryor explains how this works as follows, using the letters A, B, and C to stand in for different claims: [an] author's discussion may have the form: The conclusion I want you to accept is A. My argument for this conclusion is as follows: B and C are true, and if B and C are true, then A must also be true. It is generally accepted that B is true. However, it is controversial whether C is true. I think you ought to accept C for the following reasons... Here the author's main argument is for the conclusion A, and in the process of arguing for A he advances an auxiliary argument in support of C. (2006, 1) In Pryor s example, the author s main argument supports conclusion A using premises B and C. But since not everyone might accept C as a given, the author supports C with an auxiliary argument, which presumably would use a new set of premises (say, D, E, and F). Note that a single claim, C, can serve as a premise in one argument, but as a conclusion in another argument. II. Evaluating Arguments One of your duties as a philosophy student is not to take anything an author says for granted. Instead, you must take a critical stance while reading and listening to arguments, and pay careful attention to the reasoning an author uses to support their conclusion. A good argument gives us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true (or at least, a better answer to a certain question than some other answer). It does so because: 1) its premises are true, 2) its premises are worthy of our belief, and 3) its conclusion follows from the premises. Philosophers use four main concepts to describe these properties of good arguments: validity, soundness, consistency, and persuasiveness. (You will learn a lot more about these characteristics if you take PHI 1600 (Logic and Moral Reasoning) but we will just learn some of the basics that will be helpful for this course.) VALIDITY An argument is valid when the truth of the conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises fulfilling condition 3) of a good argument. This means that if you treated the premises as if they were true, you would have to accept the conclusion as true. Another way of saying this is that an argument is valid when the premises entail that is, lead you to accept the conclusion. 3

4 Validity is a consequence of an argument s form, not its content. That means that it doesn t matter what the premises and conclusion say, nor whether they are true or false it only matters how the premises and conclusion relate to each other. We can analyze an argument s form by replacing the propositions (phrases that can stand alone as sentences) within it with letters that symbolize those propositions. Valid Argument Forms For this class, it will be helpful to be familiar with three classic valid argument forms. Philosophers have been using these for centuries, and they will show up in many of the articles we will read. MODUS PONENS (MP) 1) If P, then Q. 2) P 3) Therefore Q. P and Q stand for any two different propositions. Let s let P = you are enrolled in PHI 1500, and Q = your name is on the roster. When we substitute those propositions for the letters P and Q, we get a valid argument: 1) If you are enrolled in PHI 1500, your name is on the roster. 2) You are enrolled in PHI ) Therefore, your name is on the roster. Modus ponens is also called affirming the antecedent. That is because premise 1 is a conditional: a statement of the form If, then. Whatever proposition goes in the first blank is called the antecedent; whatever goes in the second blank is called the consequent. Conditional statements tell us that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent must be true. Premise 2 affirms that the antecedent is true. So from premises 1 and 2, we can infer that the consequent is true which is what our conclusion 3 says. We could substitute any claims we wanted for P and Q, but as long as we arrange them in the form of a modus ponens, the argument we make will be valid. E.g., 1) If the sky is purple, then pigs can fly. 2) The sky is purple. 3) Therefore pigs can fly. is a valid argument, even though neither 1 nor 2 is actually true. It is valid because if we suppose that 1 and 2 are true, then we would have to accept that 3 is true. MODUS TOLLENS (MT) 1) If P, then Q. 2) Not-Q. 3) Therefore not-p. 4

5 A modus tollens is also called denying the consequent. It starts out just like a modus ponens, with its 1 st premise in the form of a conditional. However, its 2nd premise differs: instead of affirming the antecedent, it denies the consequent (declares Q to be false), by saying that its opposite, not-q, is true. From these premises 1 and 2, we can infer than P is false, and not-p is true. This is because if P were true, then Q would be true too (which is what premise 1 tells us) but Q is not true (according to premise 2), so P must not be true. It will probably help to see an argument in the form of modus tollens: 1) If someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, their name is on the roster. 2) Kanye West s name is not on the roster. 3) Therefore, Kanye is not enrolled in PHI In this example, P= someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, and Q= someone s name is on the roster. Kanye West is a someone, so premise 2 says not-q. From 1 and 2 we infer not-p as our conclusion. To review: Modus ponens and modus tollens both begin with a conditional, a premise that makes an if [antecedent], then [consequent] statement. We symbolize premise 1 as if P, then Q, where P=antecedent and Q=consequent In a modus ponens, premise 2 affirms the antecedent (says P), allowing us to infer that the consequent is true (Q). In a modus tollens, premise 2 denies the consequent (says not-q), allowing us to infer that the antecedent is false (not-p). Comparing the forms side-by-side: MODUS PONENS (MP) MODUS TOLLENS (MT) 1) If P, then Q. 1) If P, then Q. 2) P 2) Not-Q. 3) Therefore Q. 3) Therefore Not-P. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (DS) 1) P or Q. 2) Not-P. 3) Therefore Q. A syllogism is any argument that has two premises and one conclusion, so MP and MT are also syllogisms. But unlike the previous two valid argument forms, a disjunctive syllogism does not begin with a conditional; rather, its first premise is a disjunction: a statement of the form or. We typically assume a disjunction to be exclusive, meaning that it says that one proposition or the other is true but not both. The 2 nd premise denies one of the two propositions in the disjunction (P is false). If we know that either P or Q must be true (from premise 1), and we know that P is not true (from premise 2), then we can infer 5

6 that Q is true. Making an argument with the form of a disjunctive syllogism is just like using the process of elimination: you have two options, and you ve ruled one out, so you conclude that the other must be the right one. Here s an example: 1) Socrates was a philosopher or Socrates was a historian. 2) Socrates was not a historian. 3) Therefore Socrates was a philosopher. Invalid Argument Forms It will also help to be familiar with three invalid argument forms. These look deceptively similar to the three valid forms above, which just goes to show that very subtle changes in an argument can make all the difference for whether it is good or bad. These have less snappy names AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT (premises 2 & 3 flipped from MP) 1) If P, then Q. 2) Q. 3) Therefore P. This form is invalid because it fails to take into account an alternative possibility. Consider this example (from Jim Pryor, 2006): 1) If there is a hedgehog in my engine, my car will not start. 2) My car will not start. 3) Therefore there must be a hedgehog in my engine. There are many, many reasons why a car might not start. While having a hedgehog in your engine is one of them, it is not the only explanation why a car wouldn t run, so we cannot conclude from premises 1 and 2 that the 3 is true. In fact, 3 is quite implausible it is much more likely that your car will not start because you re out of gas, or your battery is dead, etc. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT (premises 2 & 3 flipped from MT) 1) If P, then Q. 2) Not-P. 3) Therefore Not-Q. This is also invalid because it does not account for an alternative possibility. APremise 1 tells us that if P is true, then Q will be true too. Premise 2 says P is false. But we cannot infer from this information that Q is false, because it could be the case that something other than P accounts for Q being true. The following example might help: 1) If I forget my friend s birthday, she will be mad at me. 2) I will not forget my friend s birthday. 3) Therefore my friend will not me mad at me. 6

7 Ah, if only things were so simple. The trouble here is that the author has forgotten that her friend might get mad for some other reason besides having her birthday forgotten. One cannot conclude that 3 is true, because premises 1 and 2 do not guarantee that 3 is true it could be false because you have slighted your friend in some unforeseen way. DYSFUNCTIONAL SYLLOGISM (premise 2 opposite of DS) 1) P or Q. 2) P. 3) Therefore Q. Remember that we assume that a disjunction is exclusive, meaning that it says that one proposition or the other is true but not both. In this invalid argument form, we wrongly infer that both of the two options given by the disjunction in premise 1 are true. Consider this example: 1) Baruch is in Manhattan or Baruch is in New York. 2) Baruch is in Manhattan. 3) Therefore Baruch is in New York. This is a bit tricky. Conclusion 3 happens to be true, but the argument is not valid. Premise 1 implies that Baruch must be either in Manhattan or in New York, but not both. It so happens that Baruch is in both Manhattan and New York, because Manhattan is in New York so whatever is in Manhattan is also in New York. But that information isn t given as a premise in this argument. If we knew nothing about Baruch, Manhattan, or New York, we could not possibly infer from premises 1 and 2 alone that Baruch is in New York, so this argument is invalid. In a valid argument, the truth of the premises allows one to infer that the conclusion is true without any further background information. HIDDEN PREMISES Sometimes authors will not state one of the premises in support of their argument outright; rather, they will take it for granted that their reader will also assume that premise to be true. Consider the following example (from Pryor 2006): 1) All engineers enjoy ballet. 2) Therefore, some males enjoy ballet. As written, this argument is not valid. The subject of premise 1 is engineers, but the conclusion is about males. The conclusion does not follow from the premise as written; in other words, given just premise 1 and no other information, we could not infer that the conclusion is true. However, we can make this argument valid by writing in a hidden premise (in italics), which represents an assumption an author has made which allows them to infer the conclusion: 7

8 1) All engineers enjoy ballet. 2) Some engineers are male. 3) Therefore, some males enjoy ballet. Premise 2 provides a sort of missing link between premise 1 and the conclusion. It represents something that we all assume to be true, which seems to go without saying. But in philosophical argumentation, one should not count on the reader filling up a logical gap in one s argument, even with a premise that seems like it would be obvious to everyone. For all you know, your reader might only know female engineers, and has never entertained the idea that an engineer could be male. You cannot depend on the fact that your reader has the same background knowledge and assumptions about the world as you do. SOUNDNESS An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true, fulfilling conditions 1) and 3) of a good argument. When you assess an argument s validity, it doesn t matter what the premises actually say, but only that they entail the conclusion if they are true. But when you assess an argument s soundness, it does matter what the premises say - particularly whether or not they correspond with reality. Let s look at an example: 1) If someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, they are on the roster. 2) Kim Kardashian is enrolled in PHI ) Therefore Kim K. is on the roster. This argument is valid, because it has the form of a modus ponens (where P= someone is enrolled in PHI 1500, Q= someone is on the roster, and Kim K. is a someone). But it is not sound, because premise 2 is false. An unsound argument does not support its conclusion. Remember that if an argument has a valid form, we can infer that the conclusion is true if the premises are true. But if the premises are not all true, then we cannot infer that the conclusion is true. A sound argument always has a true conclusion. So if you disagree with the conclusion of an argument, you are committed to viewing the argument as unsound: either because it is invalid, or because it is valid but one or more of its premises are false. CONSISTENCY An argument is consistent as long as none of its premises are contradictory. A contradiction occurs when a premise is inconsistent with itself (saying something like P and not-p ), or when two premises are inconsistent with each other ( P, not-p ). A contradiction cannot possibly be true, so an argument that contains a contradiction is unsound. PERSUASIVENESS 8

9 An argument is persuasive if it not only valid and sound, but its premises are obviously true, fulfilling condition 2) of a good argument. Consider the following argument: 1) Either God exists or 2+2 = 5. 2) ) Therefore God exists. This argument is valid, because it has the form of a disjunctive syllogism. However, premise 1 is not obviously true. To make this argument persuasive, the author would have to provide an auxiliary argument in defense of that disjunction, to convince us that it is true. FLAWED ARGUMENTS If an argument is not valid, sound, consistent, or persuasive, it is flawed, and does not provide a convincing defense of a claim, because the premises provided do not support the conclusion the author wants to defend. Another way that an argument can be flawed is to use a philosophical-unacceptable type of premise or pattern of reasoning to advance your argument. This is called committing a fallacy. Fallacies distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning (Smith 2009). There are many, many fallacies (for a nice summary, see For this class, we will focus on the following list (adapted from Smith 2009), with examples in italics. Note that fallacies can co-occur within a single argument. Emotional Fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience s emotions. Sentimental Appeals use emotion to distract the audience from the facts. The thousand of baby seals killed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown us that oil is not a reliable energy source. Red Herrings use misleading or unrelated evidence to support a conclusion. That painting is worthless because I don t recognize the artist. Scare Tactics try to frighten people into agreeing with the arguer by threatening them or predicting unrealistically dire consequences. If you don t support the party s tax plan, you and your family will be reduced to poverty. Bandwagon Appeals encourage an audience to agree with the writer because everyone else is doing so. Paris Hilton carries a small dog in her purse, so you should buy a hairless Chihuahua and put it in your Louis Vuitton. 9

10 Slippery Slope arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, oftentimes with disastrous results. If you get a B in high school, you won t get into the college of your choice, and therefore will never have a meaningful career. False Dichotomies reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of action. The patent office can either approve my generator design immediately or say goodbye forever to affordable energy. Ethical Fallacies unreasonably advance the writer s own authority or character. Appeals to Authority ask audiences to agree with the assertion of a writer based simply on his or her character or the authority of another person or institution who may not be fully qualified to offer that assertion. My high school teacher said it, so it must be true. Anecdotal Evidence is the use of limited personal experience or hearsay as proof. Cigarettes must not really be bad for you, because my friend s grandfather smoked every day at lived to the age of 90. Guilt by Association calls someone s character into question by examining the character of that person s associates. Sara s friend Amy robbed a bank; therefore, Sara is a delinquent. Dogmatism shuts down discussion by asserting that the writer s beliefs are the only acceptable ones. I m sorry, but I think penguins are sea creatures and that s that. Moral Equivalence compares minor problems with much more serious crimes (or vice versa). These mandatory seatbelt laws are fascist. Ad Hominem arguments attack a person s character rather than that person s reasoning. Why should we think a candidate who recently divorced will keep her campaign promises? Strawperson arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments in order to misrepresent an opponent s argument in order to defeat him or her A: We need to regulate access to handguns. B: My opponent believes that we should ignore the rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Unlike my opponent, I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and a proponent of freedom. 10

11 Logical Fallacies depend upon faulty logic. Hasty Generalizations (including Stereotypes) draw conclusions from scanty evidence. I wouldn t eat at that restaurant the only time I ate there, my entree was undercooked. Faulty Causality (or Post Hoc) arguments confuse chronology with causation: one event can occur after another without being caused by it. A year after the release of the violent shoot- em-up video game Annihilator, incidents of school violence tripled surely not a coincidence. A Non Sequitur (Latin for It doesn t follow ) is a statement that does not logically relate to what comes before it. An important logical step may be missing in such a claim. She's wearing red shoes, so red must be her favorite color. An Equivocation is a bad form of argument where one of the key terms can be understood in two ways, and the plausibility of the argument depends on reading the term differently in different premises. Exams are a nightmare, and nightmares take place during sleep. Therefore, you must be asleep while taking exams. Begging the Question (or a Circular Argument) occurs when an author assumes their conclusion in one of their premises. Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity. A Faulty Analogy is an inaccurate, inappropriate, or misleading comparison between two things. Letting prisoners out on early release is like absolving them of their crimes. Confirmation Bias is cherry-picking evidence that supports one side of the issue, while ignoring evidence in support of the opposite side. Cats are superior to dogs because they are cleaner, cuter, and more independent. If an argument involves any one of these fallacies, it is flawed, regardless of whether or not you agree with its conclusion. For example, if your classmate argues that: Baruch is the best CUNY college, because it is the college that I attend. you should recognize that their argument is flawed, even though you probably do think that Baruch is the best CUNY college. The premise they have provided (the fact that a certain student is there) is not a good measure of the overall quality of a college, and certainly does not in itself give you reason to believe that all the other CUNY colleges are inferior. Your classmate would be using Anecdotal Evidence and a Red Herring to support her claim. 11

12 III. Responding to Arguments If you identify a problem with an argument, you can raise an objection against it. An objection may motivate you to suggest a revision to the argument, where you give different premises in support of the same conclusion, and/or show that those premises actually support a different conclusion. An objection may also motivate you to pose a counterargument, where you argue in favor of the opposite conclusion. Let s return to the sample arguments from page 1: A*. Barack Obama is the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he made affordable healthcare insurance available to all Americans. There are many reasons why someone might disagree with this argument. For example, you might think that the author hasn t provided sufficient support for the conclusion, by not giving enough information about Obama s presidential accomplishments to guarantee that he is the best U.S. president ever. You might agree with the conclusion, but disagree that healthcare reform makes Obama our best president. Or you might disagree with the conclusion and instead endorse the opposite conclusion. A sample revision to this argument might be: A+. Barack Obama is the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he expanded marriage rights and made affordable healthcare insurance available to all Americans. A sample counterargument might be: A-. Barack Obama is not the best President the U.S. has ever had, given that he has failed to curb police brutality against people of color. Another example: B*. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body, because the Bible tells us so. You might disagree with B* if you are not certain that the Bible is a reputable source of information. You might even think that the author is defending their conclusion with a fallacious Appeal to Authority. Here s a possible revision: B+. Each of us possesses a soul that outlives our body, because there is no other way to explain conscious experience. And a counterargument: B+. Each of us does not possess a soul that outlives our body, because there is no verified scientific data to support the existence of souls. 12

13 One last example: C*. Dogs are better pets than cats, since every dog I have ever encountered has been friendly. You might disagree with C* if you have ever encountered an unfriendly dog, which would seem to disprove the conclusion that all dogs are friendly. At any rate, this argument uses anecdotal evidence about the author s personal experience with dogs, and exhibits confirmation bias by only presenting evidence about dogs and neglecting any favorable traits possessed by cats. A suggested revision: C+ Dogs are better pets than cats for people who want to make new friends, since dogs are generally more friendly to strangers than cats. And a possible counterargument: C- Dogs are not better pets than cats, since cats and dogs both have qualities that make them excellent pets for people with different dispositions. Works Cited Pryor, Jim. (2006) What is An Argument?, Vocabulary Describing Arguments, and Some Good and Bad Forms of Argument. Smith, Tamara. (2009) Rhetorical Fallacies. University of Texas at Austin, Undergraduate Writing Center. Fallacies.pdf 13

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

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

More information

Propaganda Collection: A Project for Practicing Persuasive Techniques

Propaganda Collection: A Project for Practicing Persuasive Techniques English II Pre-AP 3rd Quarter Propaganda Collection: A Project for Practicing Persuasive Techniques This project is due Friday, February 26, 2016. Cold War Propaganda: Propaganda Collection: Directions

More information

PHI 1700: Global Ethics

PHI 1700: Global Ethics PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 2 February 4th, 2016 All About Arguments (Philosophy Basics) 1 What is an argument? Arguments are like the currency of philosophy: they are what philosophers exchange to

More information

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 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.

More information

All About Arguments. I. What is an Argument? II. Identifying an Author s Argument

All About Arguments. I. What is an Argument? II. Identifying an Author s Argument All About Arguments PHI 1700: Global Ethics I. What is an Argument? In philosophy, an argument is not a dispute or debate; rather, it is a structured defense of a claim (that is, a statement or assertion)

More information

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

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

More information

Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments

Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments Lecture 4 Good and Bad Arguments Jim Pryor Some Good and Bad Forms of Arguments 1 Agenda 1. Reductio Ad Absurdum 2. Burden of Proof 3. Argument by Analogy 4. Bad Forms of Arguments 1. Begging the Question

More information

Fallacies. Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Fallacies. Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. Fallacies 1. Hasty generalization Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small). Stereotypes about

More information

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 10 th, 2014 Methods: Reading Philosophy 1 Reading Philosophy As we saw from Russell s essay, it can be difficult to decode what an author is saying,

More information

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one?

Argument. What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument What is it? How do I make a good one? Argument Vs Persuasion Everything s an argument, really. Argument: appeals strictly by reason and logic Persuasion: logic and emotion The forum of your argument

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

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 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

More information

PHI 1700: Global Ethics

PHI 1700: Global Ethics PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 3 February 11th, 2016 Harman, Ethics and Observation 1 (finishing up our All About Arguments discussion) A common theme linking many of the fallacies we covered is that

More information

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this.

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which translates as after this, therefore because of this. So what do fallacies look like? For each fallacy listed, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip on how to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments. Hasty generalization Definition:

More information

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

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,

More information

Skim the Article to Find its Conclusion and Get a Sense of its Structure

Skim the Article to Find its Conclusion and Get a Sense of its Structure Pryor, Jim. (2006) Guidelines on Reading Philosophy, What is An Argument?, Vocabulary Describing Arguments. Published at http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html, and http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html

More information

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Argument

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

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

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope

Fallacies in logic. Hasty Generalization. Post Hoc (Faulty cause) Slippery Slope Fallacies in logic Hasty Generalization Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes

More information

Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

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)

More information

Bellwork Friday November 18th

Bellwork Friday November 18th Bellwork Friday November 18th In your Writing Journal please respond to the following prompt: What is the most ridiculous argument you have heard? Remember this is NOT fight argument. I m talking trying

More information

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me?

Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Page 1 of 10 10b Learn how to evaluate verbal and visual arguments. Video: How does understanding whether or not an argument is inductive or deductive help me? Download transcript Three common ways to

More information

Arguments. 1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand),

Arguments. 1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and relevant to the issue at hand), Doc Holley s Logical Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise

More information

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 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

More information

2/21/2014. FOUR WAYS OF KNOWING (Justifiable True Belief) 1. Sensory input; 2. Authoritative knowledge; 3. Logic and reason; 4. Faith and intuition

2/21/2014. FOUR WAYS OF KNOWING (Justifiable True Belief) 1. Sensory input; 2. Authoritative knowledge; 3. Logic and reason; 4. Faith and intuition FOUR WAYS OF KNOWING (Justifiable True Belief) 1. Sensory input; 2. Authoritative knowledge; 3. Logic and reason; 4. Faith and intuition Argumentative Fallacies The Logic of Writing and Debate from http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

More information

Chapter 1. What is Philosophy? Thinking Philosophically About Life

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

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

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

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

More information

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument ARGUMENT Questions for Critically Reading an Argument What claims does the writer make? What kinds and quality of evidence does the writer provide to support the claim? What assumptions underlie the argument,

More information

Logical (formal) fallacies

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

More information

The Toulmin Model in Brief

The Toulmin Model in Brief The Toulmin Model in Brief A popular form of argument is the Toulmin model (other forms include classical and Rogerian). This model is named after Stephen Toulmin, who in The Uses of Argument proposed

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

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

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

More information

Full file at

Full file at Chapter 1 What is Philosophy? Summary Chapter 1 introduces students to main issues and branches of philosophy. The chapter begins with a basic definition of philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, and addresses

More information

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

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

More information

The Philosopher s World Cup

The Philosopher s World Cup The Philosopher s World Cup Monty Python & the Flying Circus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vv3qgagck&feature=related What is an argument? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqfkti6gn9y What is an argument?

More information

AICE Thinking Skills Review. How to Master Paper 2

AICE Thinking Skills Review. How to Master Paper 2 AICE Thinking kills Review How to Master Paper 2 Important Things to Remember You are given 1 hour and 45 minutes for Paper 2 You should spend approximately 30 minutes on each question Write neatly! Read

More information

Take Home Exam #1. PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Prof. Lauren R. Alpert

Take Home Exam #1. PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Prof. Lauren R. Alpert PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Prof. Lauren R. Alpert Name: Date: Take Home Exam #1 Instructions Answer as many questions as you are able to. Please write your answers clearly in the blanks provided.

More information

Fallacies. It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your. The Writing Center

Fallacies. It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your. The Writing Center The Writing Center Fallacies Like 40 people like this. What this handout is about This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The

More information

Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading

Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading Reading Comprehension Fallacies in Reading Developed by Jamie A. Hughes, South Campus Learning Center, Communications Lab 04-25-05 Permission to copy and use is granted to all FCCJ staff provided this

More information

The Roman empire ended, the Mongol empire ended, the Persian empire ended, the British empire ended, all empires end, and none lasts forever.

The Roman empire ended, the Mongol empire ended, the Persian empire ended, the British empire ended, all empires end, and none lasts forever. BASIC ARGUMENTATION Alfred Snider, University of Vermont World Schools Debate Academy, Slovenia, 2015 Induction, deduction, causation, fallacies INDUCTION Definition: studying a sufficient number of analogous

More information

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

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

More information

Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument?

Argumentation. 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? . What is the purpose of argumentation? Argumentation 2. What should we consider when making (or testing) an argument? According to Toulmin (964), the checking list can be outlined as follows: () The Claim

More information

Argument and Persuasion. Stating Opinions and Proposals

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

More information

The Field of Logical Reasoning: (& The back 40 of Bad Arguments)

The Field of Logical Reasoning: (& The back 40 of Bad Arguments) The Field of Logical Reasoning: (& The back 40 of Bad Arguments) Adapted from: An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments: Learn the lost art of making sense by Ali Almossawi *Not, by any stretch of the imagination,

More information

1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims

1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims 1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims In the previous tutorial we saw that the standard of acceptability of a statement (or premise) depends on the context. In certain contexts we may only require

More information

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of:

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of: Logical Fallacies Continuing our foray into the world of Argument Courtesy of: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html What is Fallacy? Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. First,

More information

Fallacies. What this handout is about. Arguments. What are fallacies?

Fallacies. What this handout is about. Arguments. What are fallacies? The Writing Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb Fallacies What this handout is about This handout is on common logical fallacies that you may encounter in

More information

The Argumentative Essay

The Argumentative Essay The Argumentative Essay but what is the difference between an argument and a quarrel? Academic argumentation is based on logical, structured evidence that attempts the reader to accept an opinion, take

More information

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7

Portfolio Project. Phil 251A Logic Fall Due: Friday, December 7 Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments

More information

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, 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

More information

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS QUIZ Critical Thinking: Quiz 4 Chapter Three: Argument Evaluation Section I. Indicate whether the following claims (1-10) are either true (A) or false (B). 1. If an arguer precedes

More information

LOGICAL FALLACIES/ERRORS OF ARGUMENT

LOGICAL FALLACIES/ERRORS OF ARGUMENT LOGICAL FALLACIES/ERRORS OF ARGUMENT Deduction Fallacies Term Definition Example(s) 1 Equivocation Ambiguity 2 types: The word or phrase may be ambiguous, in which case it has more than one distinct meaning

More information

PHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen.

PHI 244. Environmental Ethics. Introduction. Argument Worksheet. Argument Worksheet. Welcome to PHI 244, Environmental Ethics. About Stephen. Introduction PHI 244 Welcome to PHI 244, About Stephen Texts Course Requirements Syllabus Points of Interest Website http://seschmid.org, http://seschmid.org/teaching Email Policy 1 2 Argument Worksheet

More information

Everything s an Argument Guided Study Notes, Chapters Chapter 16: What Counts in Evidence

Everything s an Argument Guided Study Notes, Chapters Chapter 16: What Counts in Evidence Everything s an Argument Guided Study Notes, Chapters 16-17 Chapter 16: What Counts in Evidence Name: Date: Per 3 4 5 1) Quality of evidence is defined by what three things? A. B. C. 2) To be most persuasive,

More information

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

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.

More information

Overview: Application: What to Avoid:

Overview: Application: What to Avoid: UNIT 3: BUILDING A BASIC ARGUMENT While "argument" has a number of different meanings, college-level arguments typically involve a few fundamental pieces that work together to construct an intelligent,

More information

Common Logical Fallacies

Common Logical Fallacies Common Logical Fallacies Effective arguments rely on logic and facts for support, yet speakers and authors, whether intentionally or unintentionally, can mislead an audience with a flaw in reasoning. Readers

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

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

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

More information

ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments

ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments ARGUMENTS Arguments arguments 1 Argument Worksheet 1. An argument is a collection of propositions with one proposition, the conclusion, following from the other propositions, the premises. Inference is

More information

Structuring and Analyzing Argument: Toulmin and Rogerian Models. English 106

Structuring and Analyzing Argument: Toulmin and Rogerian Models. English 106 Structuring and Analyzing Argument: Toulmin and Rogerian Models English 106 The Toulmin Model Developed by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in the 1950 s Emphasizes that logic often based on probability

More information

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

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

More information

Quick Write # 11. Create a narrative for the following image

Quick Write # 11. Create a narrative for the following image Welcome to class Quick Write # 11 Create a narrative for the following image Day 17 Agenda Quick Write # 11 Peer editing Review Autobiographical Narrative reading Book Club presentations Peer Editing

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

How To Recognize and Avoid Them. Joseph M Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA

How To Recognize and Avoid Them. Joseph M Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA How To Recognize and Avoid Them Joseph M Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA Fallacies are logical errors that weaken arguments Commonplace Can be persuasive to the uninformed Can be driven by agendas or strong

More information

Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore. I. Moorean Methodology. In A Proof of the External World, Moore argues as follows:

Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore. I. Moorean Methodology. In A Proof of the External World, Moore argues as follows: Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore I argue that Moore s famous response to the skeptic should be accepted even by the skeptic. My paper has three main stages. First, I will briefly outline G. E.

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

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

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 6: Evaluating Thinking 1 In this lesson we will learn: To evaluate our thinking and the thinking of others using the Intellectual Standards Two approaches to evaluating

More information

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of:

Logical Fallacies. Continuing our foray into the world of Argument. Courtesy of: Logical Fallacies Continuing our foray into the world of Argument Courtesy of: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html What is an argument? An argument is not the same thing as a contradiction..

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

Debate Vocabulary 203 terms by mdhamilton25

Debate Vocabulary 203 terms by mdhamilton25 Debate Vocabulary 203 terms by mdhamilton25 Like this study set? Create a free account to save it. Create a free account Accident Adapting Ad hominem attack (Attack on the person) Advantage Affirmative

More information

CRITICAL THINKING. Formal v Informal Fallacies

CRITICAL THINKING. Formal v Informal Fallacies CRITICAL THINKING FAULTY REASONING (VAUGHN CH. 5) LECTURE PROFESSOR JULIE YOO Formal v Informal Fallacies Irrelevant Premises Genetic Fallacy Composition Division Appeal to the Person (ad hominem/tu quoque)

More information

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies

Christ-Centered Critical Thinking. Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies 1 Learning Outcomes In this lesson we will: 1.Define logical fallacy using the SEE-I. 2.Understand and apply the concept of relevance. 3.Define,

More information

Figures removed due to copyright restrictions.

Figures removed due to copyright restrictions. Lincoln/Douglas Debate Figures removed due to copyright restrictions. Debating is like Fencing Thrust Making assertions backed by evidence Parry R f Refuting opponents assertions Burden of Proof In a formal

More information

Overview of Today s Lecture

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.,

More information

Philosophical Methods Revised: August, 2018

Philosophical Methods Revised: August, 2018 Introduction Philosophical Methods Revised: August, 2018 What is philosophy? This is a difficult question to answer well, so I ll start by saying what philosophy is not. Philosophy is not just speculation

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

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

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

More information

I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please.

I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please. I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please. A solid argument can be built just like a solid house: walls first, then the roof. Here s a building plan, plus three ways arguments collapse. July/August 2002 I want

More information

Genuine dichotomies expressed using either/or statements are always true:

Genuine dichotomies expressed using either/or statements are always true: CRITICAL THINKING HANDOUT 13 DILEMMAS You re either part of the solution or you re part of the problem Attributed to Eldridge Cleaver, 1968 Over time it s going to be important for nations to know they

More information

Lecture 4: Deductive Validity

Lecture 4: Deductive Validity Lecture 4: Deductive Validity Right, I m told we can start. Hello everyone, and hello everyone on the podcast. This week we re going to do deductive validity. Last week we looked at all these things: have

More information

L4: Reasoning. Dani Navarro

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

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

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 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

More information

Fallacies Keep in Your Binder

Fallacies Keep in Your Binder Fallacies Keep in Your Binder What this handout is about This handout is on common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The handout provides definitions,

More information

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

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

More information

Recall. Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true. Soundness. Valid; and. Premises are true

Recall. Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true. Soundness. Valid; and. Premises are true Recall Validity: If the premises are true the conclusion must be true Soundness Valid; and Premises are true Validity In order to determine if an argument is valid, we must evaluate all of the sets of

More information

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S

14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S 14.6 Speaking Ethically and Avoiding Fallacies L E A R N I N G O B JE C T I V E S 1. Demonstrate the importance of ethics as part of the persuasion process. 2. Identify and provide examples of eight common

More information

3.2: FAULTY REASONING AND PROPAGANDA. Ms. Hargen

3.2: FAULTY REASONING AND PROPAGANDA. Ms. Hargen 3.2: FAULTY REASONING AND PROPAGANDA Ms. Hargen PROPAGANDA Persuasion that deliberately discourages people from thinking for themselves. It relies on one-sided or distorted arguments. HASTY GENERALIZATION

More information

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities

C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion

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

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

Final Paper. May 13, 2015

Final Paper. May 13, 2015 24.221 Final Paper May 13, 2015 Determinism states the following: given the state of the universe at time t 0, denoted S 0, and the conjunction of the laws of nature, L, the state of the universe S at

More information

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

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:

More information

Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

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

More information

Directions: For Problems 1-10, determine whether the given statement is either True (A) or False (B).

Directions: For Problems 1-10, determine whether the given statement is either True (A) or False (B). Critical Thinking Exam 2: Chapter 3 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS EXAM. Directions: For Problems 1-10, determine whether the given statement is either True (A) or False (B). 1. Valid arguments never have

More information

Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test

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

More information

stage 2 Logic & Knowledge

stage 2 Logic & Knowledge stage 2 Logic & Knowledge What logic puts in order is the way we reason out. Logic makes explicit the rules of reasoning. Logical Inference Determining if an argument is valid or not is important, but

More information