A Short Course in Logic Example 3

Similar documents
CRITICAL THINKING: THE VERY BASICS - HANDBOOK

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

Critical Thinking. The Four Big Steps. First example. I. Recognizing Arguments. The Nature of Basics

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

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

A Short Course in Logic Answers to Practice

CHAPTER 9 DIAGRAMMING DEBATES. What You ll Learn in this Chapter

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

The Cosmological Argument

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

1/19/2011. Concept. Analysis

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

Improving Students' "Dialectic Tracking" Skills (Diagramming Complex Arguments) Cathal Woods for 2010 AAPT Meeting.

The SAT Essay: An Argument-Centered Strategy

1.2. What is said: propositions

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

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

I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes

The Power of Critical Thinking Why it matters How it works

Conditionals II: no truth conditions?

Responses to the sorites paradox

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

National Quali cations

Logicola Truth Evaluation Exercises

2017 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

Instructor s Manual 1

Causal fallacies; Causation and experiments. Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Winter 2010 UC San Diego 2/26/2010

Fourth Meditation: Truth and falsity

Basic Concepts and Skills!

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

2013 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Critical Thinking is:

Helpful Hints for doing Philosophy Papers (Spring 2000)

In a previous lecture, we used Aristotle s syllogisms to emphasize the

1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4

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

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.

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES

Writing Module Three: Five Essential Parts of Argument Cain Project (2008)

Lecture 4: Deductive Validity

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

CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS

The Relationship between the Truth Value of Premises and the Truth Value of Conclusions in Deductive Arguments

Macmillan/McGraw-Hill SCIENCE: A CLOSER LOOK 2011, Grade 4 Correlated with Common Core State Standards, Grade 4

A Brief Introduction to Key Terms

The People-Pleasing Project Manager; Why Nice Guys Make Terrible Project Leaders

2016 Philosophy. Higher. Finalised Marking Instructions

Philosophical Perspectives, 16, Language and Mind, 2002 THE AIM OF BELIEF 1. Ralph Wedgwood Merton College, Oxford


Criticizing Arguments

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

Three Kinds of Arguments

College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading. Step Into the Time 36 Step Into the Place 92, 108, 174, 292, 430

10. Evaluation Evaluating individual reasons and objections

Getting To God. The Basic Evidence For The Truth of Christian Theism. truehorizon.org

Topics. Evaluating. arguments. 1 Introduction. PHI 1101, Section I (P. Rusnock) 2 Evaluating Premises. Introduction

Macmillan/McGraw-Hill SCIENCE: A CLOSER LOOK 2011, Grade 1 Correlated with Common Core State Standards, Grade 1

New Testament Exegesis Outline Template by Rev. D. E. Norczyk

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

C.S. Lewis and the Riddle of Joy Contributed by Michael Gleghorn

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

ON WRITING PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS: SOME GUIDELINES Richard G. Graziano

Argument vs Persuasion vs Propaganda. So many terms...what do they all mean??

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

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments

A Rational Solution to the Problem of Moral Error Theory? Benjamin Scott Harrison

Critical Thinking - Section 1

2. Discuss the limitations of human reasoning, and what the expectations of God are for us 3. Use the principle of necessary inference to answer

A Guide to FOL Proof Rules ( for Worksheet 6)

Complications for Categorical Syllogisms. PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did. Man: You didn t Mr Vibrating: I did! Man: You didn t! Mr Vibrating: I m telling you I did! Man: You did not!!

Nathaniel Goldberg. McTAGGART ON TIME

WHY IS GOD GOOD? EUTYPHRO, TIMAEUS AND THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

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

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

This handout discusses common types of philosophy assignments and strategies and resources that will help you write your philosophy papers.

Discovering Our Past: A History of the United States, Early Years Correlated to Common Core State Standards, Grades 6 8

Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will,

Night Argumentative Essay Prompt

Grab a book! Of Mice and Men. Final Essay. I can follow a process to plan, write, edit, revise, and publish an essay

Writing the Persuasive Essay

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

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

The Critique (analyzing an essay s argument)

Macmillan/McGraw-Hill SCIENCE: A CLOSER LOOK 2011, Grade 3 Correlated with Common Core State Standards, Grade 3

WRITING IN THE DISCPLINES: PHILOSOPHY WAYS OF READING

The importance of persuasion It is impossible to isolate yourself from persuasive messages Politics, education, religion, business you name it!

Philosophy 1100: Ethics

Dr. Carlo Alvaro Reasoning and Argumentation Distribution & Opposition DISTRIBUTION

World History and Geography Correlated to Common Core State Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects

Affirmation-Negation: New Perspective

Harman s Moral Relativism

Reductio ad Absurdum, Modulation, and Logical Forms. Miguel López-Astorga 1

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

The Power of Critical Thinking

Testing semantic sequents with truth tables

6. Truth and Possible Worlds

Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions

Transcription:

A Short Course in Logic Example 3 I) Recognizing Arguments III) Evaluating Arguments II) Analyzing Arguments Bad Argument: Bad Inference Identifying the Parts of the Argument Premises Inferences Diagramming the Argument The Bob Method IV) What the Evaluation Means Conclusions of Bad Arguments V) Summary I) Recognizing Arguments Here s another argument. Like the previous examples, this passage is an argument because it s attempting to prove that an idea is true by citing other ideas as evidence. II) Analyzing Arguments Identifying the Parts of the Argument As usual, we ll tackle this argument by identifying its parts. And remember, the ultimate conclusion is what the passage is trying to prove. Premises are taken for granted by the argument without support. And subconclusions are intermediate steps. The argument does give us reason to believe the subconclusions and then goes on to use the subconclusions to prove other ideas. So, in order to identify the parts of an argument, it helps to do two things:. Start out by asking, What is the main idea that this argument is trying to prove? The answer to that question is the ultimate conclusion of the argument. 2. Then, for all other important ideas in the argument (that is to say, for all of the ideas that strike you as relevant to establishing the truth of the ultimate conclusion) ask Does the argument give us reason to believe that this is true, or does the argument just take this for granted? If the argument does give us reason to believe an idea, it s a subconclusion. If the argument doesn t give us reason to believe an idea, but instead just takes the idea for granted, it s a premise.

2 Stop and Think: Determine whether each of the bracketed sentences is the ultimate conclusion, a premise, or a subconclusion in the argument. 3) [Ann s parents enjoy history]. Thus [she should major in it]. In this argument, She should major in it is the ultimate conclusion because it s the main idea that the argument is trying to prove. (The word thus, a conclusion indicator expression like therefore, can help us to see that reasons are being given for this idea.) Ann s parents enjoy history, is a premise in this argument; the argument is just taking it for granted and it s being used as evidence for the ultimate conclusion. 3) [Ann s parents enjoy history] (premise). Thus [she should major in it] (ultimate conclusion). Diagramming the Argument Argument 3 is diagrammed like this.. Ann should major in history. 2 A Does it make sense to you that this should be the diagram for Argument 3? Notice once again how the premise, idea 2, is at the top of the inference arrow and how the ultimate conclusion, idea, is at the bottom of the inference arrow. The inference arrow itself shows that idea 2 is being given as reason to believe idea. Notice, too, how the conclusion indicator expression thus can help us to see that is a conclusion following from 2. III) Evaluating Arguments Now that we have a diagram of the argument, we can proceed to evaluate it.

3 Stop and Think: Is this argument good or bad? Remember, a good argument succeeds in proving to its audience that the ultimate conclusion is true. Does this argument do that? Why or why not?. Ann should major in history. 2 A Bad Argument: Bad Inference We ve seen that we should ask two questions of an argument s premises: ) Do we think that this premise is true? and 2) Could people in the argument s audience, including people who don t already believe the ultimate conclusion, reasonably think that this premise is true? We can assume that Ann s parent s enjoy history, and since someone could believe that Ann s parents enjoy history without already believing that Ann should major in history, it seems to me that the answer to both of these questions is yes, and that the premise is okay.. Ann should major in history. A Nonetheless, I think that this argument is bad because the fact that Ann s parents enjoy history doesn t prove that Ann should major in it. What if Ann, herself, hates the subject, or has no aptitude for it? The connection between 2 and isn t as good as it could be, and since this connection is the inference, inference A is bad. And because a bad inference can prevent an argument from proving that its ultimate conclusion is true, a bad inference can make an entire argument bad, just like a bad premise can.

4. Ann should major in history. A We ve seen that a bad inference can make an argument bad no matter how good the premise is, just like a weak rope can snap and make the man fall, no matter how strong the beam is. Premise Inference Ultimate conclusion Premises Inferences Just like beams and ropes are two different things and one can be good while the other is bad, premises and inferences are two different things and one can be good while the other is bad. An inference is the connection between two ideas. To say that an inference is good is that say that if the claims at the top of the arrow were true (which they may not actually be) then the claim at the bottom would probably be true as well, just like to say that a rope is strong is to say that if the beam is good (which it might not actually be) then the man is in no danger.) Similarly, to say that an inference is bad is to say that even if the claims at the top of the arrow were true, the claim at the bottom of the arrow could easily be false, just like to say that a rope is bad is to say that even if the beam is strong the fellow could fall. This means that evaluating premises and evaluating inferences are two very different things, like evaluating the strength of a beam and evaluating the strength of a rope are two very different things, and that, consequently, it s a mistake to conclude that an inference is bad just because the premise is, or vice versa.

5 This can make evaluating inferences a little tricky because it s easy (although an error) to allow our assessment of the premises to influence our assessment of the inference. In order to avoid this mistake, we ll evaluate inferences using the Bob Method. Here s how it works: The Bob Method for Evaluating Inferences To evaluate an inference, imagine Bob, a perfectly gullible but perfectly rational guy. Because Bob is perfectly gullible, he ll believe anything we tell him, but because Bob is perfectly rational, he ll reason well. We suppose Bob believes the ideas at the top of the arrow and ask ourselves How likely is Bob to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow? If Bob is compelled to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow, then the inference is perfect. If Bob is likely, but not compelled, to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow, then the inference is imperfect but good. If Bob isn t even likely to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow, then the inference is bad. Using the Bob Method, we can see that the inference in Example 3 is bad because Bob could very easily believe idea 2 and not believe idea.. Ann should major in history. A (By the way, it s important to remember that we should never use the Bob Method to evaluate premises. Can you see why not? Because Bob believes everything we tell him, he ll always believe the premises, no matter how outlandish. If we used the Bob method to evaluate premises, every premise would turn out to be good!) IV) What the Evaluation Means Conclusions of Bad Arguments So, what does this argument tell us about the truth or falsity of its ultimate conclusion? Absolutely nothing. Bad arguments can have true conclusions and they can have false conclusions, so if this argument is all we have to go on, we should suspend judgment about whether or not Ann should major in history.

6 V) Summary. Ann should major in history. A Evaluating Arguments Premises Inferences Premises and inferences are different things. A premise can be good when the inference is bad, and a premise can be bad when the inference is good. The Bob Method for Evaluating Inferences (not Premises) To evaluate an inference, imagine Bob, a perfectly gullible but perfectly rational guy. Because Bob is perfectly gullible, he ll believe anything we tell him, but because Bob is perfectly rational, he ll reason well. We suppose Bob believes the ideas at the top of the arrow and ask ourselves How likely is Bob to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow? If Bob is compelled to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow, then the inference is perfect. If Bob is likely, but not compelled, to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow, then the inference is imperfect but good. If Bob isn t even likely to believe the idea at the bottom of the arrow, then the inference is bad.