Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

Similar documents
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.

PHI Introduction Lecture 4. An Overview of the Two Branches of Logic

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING AT ALL?

Geometry TEST Review Chapter 2 - Logic

Introduction to Logic. Instructor: Jason Sheley

Introducing Our New Faculty

Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide

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

What could be some limitations to using fingerprints as evidence? Sep 2 12:58 PM

13.6 Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments

Chapter 5: Ways of knowing Reason (p. 111)

Geometry 2.3.notebook October 02, 2015

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

Basic Concepts and Skills!

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

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

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

Richard L. W. Clarke, Notes REASONING

Philosophy 1100: Ethics

Lecture 1: Validity & Soundness

Critical Thinking - Wk 3. Instructor: Jason Sheley

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

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

Review Deductive Logic. Wk2 Day 2. Critical Thinking Ninjas! Steps: 1.Rephrase as a syllogism. 2.Choose your weapon

The antecendent always a expresses a sufficient condition for the consequent

Test Item File. Full file at

! Introduction to the Class! Some Introductory Concepts. Today s Lecture 1/19/10

Time, Self and Mind (ATS1835) Introduc;on to Philosophy B Semester 2, Dr Ron Gallagher Week 5: Can Machines Think?

Argument Mapping. Table of Contents. By James Wallace Gray 2/13/2012

Introduction to Philosophy

Section 3.5. Symbolic Arguments. Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

1.6 Validity and Truth

Logic, Deductive And Inductive By Carveth Read READ ONLINE

INDUCTION. All inductive reasoning is based on an assumption called the UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

Categorical Logic Handout Logic: Spring Sound: Any valid argument with true premises.

5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments

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

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

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

IDHEF Chapter 2 Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?

Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

By submitting this essay, I attest that it is my own work, completed in accordance with University regulations. Minh Alexander Nguyen

1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis

Section 3.5. Symbolic Arguments. Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc.

Instructor s Manual 1

!Validity!Soundness. Today s Lecture 1//21/10

Tutorial A02: Validity and Soundness By: Jonathan Chan

What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing

Logic Book Part 1! by Skylar Ruloff!

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

Handout 2 Argument Terminology

Reading and Evaluating Arguments

Appendix: The Logic Behind the Inferential Test

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

C. Problem set #1 due today, now, on the desk. B. More of an art than a science the key things are: 4.

Fallacies are deceptive errors of thinking.

1.5. Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity

Part 2 Module 4: Categorical Syllogisms

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

Chapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment

A Romp through the Foothills of Logic: Session 1

Introduction to Philosophy Crito. Instructor: Jason Sheley

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

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

Introduction to Philosophy

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

ARGUMENTS. Arguments. arguments

As noted, a deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. We have certainty with deductive arguments in

Questions for Critically Reading an Argument

Introduction to Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments

Phil. 103: Introduction to Logic The Structure of Arguments

2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.

Introduction Symbolic Logic

2013 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

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.

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

Chapter 1 - Basic Training

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

Phil. 103: Introduction to Logic The Structure of Arguments

Exposition of Symbolic Logic with Kalish-Montague derivations

Chapter 1. What is Philosophy? Thinking Philosophically About Life

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

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

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

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

FROM INQUIRY TO ACADEMIC WRITING CHAPTER 8 FROM ETHOS TO LOGOS: APPEALING TO YOUR READERS

Functions of the Mind and Soul

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

Critical Thinking: Present, Past and Future 5 April, 2015

The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Defining induction...

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

HW3- Sets & Arguments (solutions) Due: Tuesday April 5, 2011

Inductive Reasoning. Definition. Basing a conclusion on specific examples.

Introduction to Logic

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

Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction

Topics and Posterior Analytics. Philosophy 21 Fall, 2004 G. J. Mattey

PHLA10 Reason and Truth Exercise 1

Courses providing assessment data PHL 202. Semester/Year

EXERCISES: (from

Transcription:

Example Arguments ID1050 Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

First Steps to Analyzing an Argument In the following slides, some simple arguments will be given. The steps to begin analyzing each argument are: Eliminate any non-statements. Identify the conclusion and the premises. Determine if the argument is inductive or deductive Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid. We will learn later how to prove validity of an argument. In this presentation I will simply discuss its validity/invalidity. Valid arguments can be sound or unsound. We will not be learning how to decide if an argument is sound or not, but I will discuss it during this presentation. Inductive arguments are analyzed for fallacies, or know bad argument types.

Dogs, Animals, and Things That Eat Here is an argument: All dogs are animals. All animals must eat. So, all dogs must eat. Animals Dogs Things that eat There are no non-statements in this argument. There is a conclusion indicator, So. The last statement is the conclusion, and the others are premises. This argument is Deductive. The intention of the argument is that if the premises are true, they will lead with certainty to the conclusion. It will turn out that this argument is Valid. For now, consider the diagram above. We would probably all agree that the premises are true, so this argument is Sound.

Here is an argument: Bloops, Gleeks, and Zorgs All Bloops are Gleeks. All Gleeks are Zorgs. Therefore, all Bloops are also Zorgs. Gleeks Bloops There are no non-statements in this argument. There is a conclusion indicator, Therefore. The last statement is the conclusion, and the others are premises. This argument is Deductive. The intention of the argument is that if the premises are true, they will lead with certainty to the conclusions. It will turn out that this argument is Valid. For now, consider the diagram above. We have no idea if the premises are true, so we can t decide about its soundness. Zorgs

Here is an argument: Dogs, Animals, and Four-Legged Things All dogs are animals. All (normal) dogs have four legs. Thus, all animals have four legs. Animals Dogs Things with 4 legs This sounds like a previous argument about dogs, but something seems to be wrong! The conclusion indicator, Thus, tells us the last statement is the conclusion. This argument is Deductive. The intention of the argument is that if the premises are true, they will lead with certainty to the conclusions. (Although it is flawed.) It is clear that this argument is Invalid. We will prove this later, but consider the diagram. We can t discuss soundness because the argument is invalid.

Here is an argument: My grandfather was logical. My father was logical. So, I am logical. Logical eople, art I This argument is Inductive. The intention of the argument is to give supporting premises, but even if they are true, they do not guarantee that the conclusion is true, only that it is likely to be true. We cannot discuss either validity or soundness of inductive arguments. These terms apply only to deductive arguments.

Here is a similar argument: Logical eople, art II hildren of logical people are always logical. My father was logical. So, I am logical. The only change to the previous argument is the first premise. The conclusion is exactly the same as before. This argument is Deductive. The intention of the argument is to guarantee that the conclusion is true. This is, in fact, a Valid argument. If the premises are true, they invariably lead to the conclusion. However, I think you ll agree that this argument is Unsound. The first premise is not generally agreed upon to be true.

onclusion Analyzing an argument begins with finding the conclusion and premises, then determining whether the argument is Deductive (premises guarantee the conclusion) or Inductive (premises make the conclusion likely). You can t determine whether an argument is Valid or Invalid simply by looking at the Truth or Falseness of the conclusion alone. Validity is a matter of the entire structure of the argument. Validity only applies to Deductive arguments. We will learn to prove or disprove validity later. Soundness only applies to Valid Deductive arguments. We won t be working with soundness of arguments in this course. Inductive arguments may have fallacies that defeat them. If they don t, then all that is left is to argue against the strength of the premises.