Chapter 01 hurley 12e
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•1,642 views
The document discusses the key concepts of logic, including the nature of arguments and their components. An argument consists of premises and a conclusion, which can be identified using common indicators. Deductive arguments claim necessity while inductive arguments claim probability. Valid deductive arguments cannot have true premises and a false conclusion, while strong inductive arguments make it improbable that the conclusion is false. The validity of an argument depends on its form.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Notes for logic
1. The document discusses the key concepts of logic including arguments, propositions, premises, conclusions and the validity of arguments.
2. It provides examples to illustrate inductive and deductive arguments, and distinguishes between arguments and explanations.
3. Arguments are considered valid if the truth of the premises necessarily implies the truth of the conclusion, while invalid arguments can have true premises and conclusions but the conclusion does not logically follow.
Types of Argument presentation
The document discusses two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. An example is: All bats are mammals; all mammals are warm-blooded; so all bats are warm-blooded. An inductive argument is one where the conclusion is probable rather than necessary, such as: Most law students own laptops; Mehmood is a law student; so Mehmood probably owns a laptop. The key difference is that deductive arguments lead to necessary conclusions while inductive arguments lead to probable conclusions.
Critical Thinking Skills - Arguments
The document defines and discusses arguments. It provides definitions of arguments from various authors that generally define an argument as consisting of a conclusion supported by one or more premises intended to convince the reader of the conclusion. The document then discusses the key components of an argument - propositions/claims, premises that provide reasons or evidence, and a conclusion. It provides examples of argument indicators and exercises for identifying arguments.
Categorical propositions
The document discusses the theory of deduction and categorical propositions. It explains that Aristotelian logic focuses on arguments with categorical propositions that relate classes or categories to each other. There are four standard forms of categorical propositions - universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E), particular affirmative (I), and particular negative (O). Each relates the subject and predicate classes in a different way. For example, an A proposition states that all members of the subject class are members of the predicate class, while an O proposition states that at least one member of the subject class is not a member of the predicate class.
Traditional Square of opposition
There are four types of opposition between categorical propositions: contradictories, contraries, sub-contraries, and sub-alternation. Contradictories have the same subject and predicate terms but differ in quality and quantity, with one being the denial of the other. Contraries differ only in quality but have the same subject and predicate terms and quantity. Sub-contraries differ in quality but have the same subject, predicate, and quantity. Sub-alternation agrees in quality but differs in quantity. Examples of each type of opposition are provided.
1.1 arguments, premises, and conclusions
Formal Logic : Leacture 01
Chapter 1: Basic Concepts
1.1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
Follow on Facebook:
https://web.facebook.com/learnforgood...
and on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8kUyEAA5ix6Bl5H5gKXo3A
Like, Comment and Share.
Also Subscribe For More Videos.
Learn For Good.
Fallacies
The document provides information about different types of logical fallacies, including fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. It defines what a fallacy is, and categorizes them into two types - fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. For fallacies of relevance, it gives examples and explanations of different types like personal attack, attacking the motive, look who's talking, two wrongs make a right, scare tactics, appeal to emotion, bandwagon argument, straw man, red herring, equivocation, and begging the question. For fallacies of insufficient evidence, it discusses false authority, appeal to ignorance, false dilemma, loaded question, false cause, hasty generalization, slippery slope, weak analogy
Logic unit 1
The document defines key logical terms and concepts used to evaluate arguments, including:
- Logic evaluates arguments by distinguishing good arguments from bad
- Arguments contain premises that aim to support a conclusion
- A good argument has premises that truly support the conclusion, while a bad argument has premises that do not support the conclusion
- Deductive arguments claim the conclusion necessarily follows from premises, while inductive arguments claim the conclusion probably follows
- For deductive arguments, a valid argument has a conclusion that necessarily follows premises, while an invalid argument's conclusion does not necessarily follow premises
- For inductive arguments, a strong argument has an improbable chance premises are true and conclusion false, while a weak argument's conclusion does not
Recommended
Notes for logic
1. The document discusses the key concepts of logic including arguments, propositions, premises, conclusions and the validity of arguments.
2. It provides examples to illustrate inductive and deductive arguments, and distinguishes between arguments and explanations.
3. Arguments are considered valid if the truth of the premises necessarily implies the truth of the conclusion, while invalid arguments can have true premises and conclusions but the conclusion does not logically follow.
Types of Argument presentation
The document discusses two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. An example is: All bats are mammals; all mammals are warm-blooded; so all bats are warm-blooded. An inductive argument is one where the conclusion is probable rather than necessary, such as: Most law students own laptops; Mehmood is a law student; so Mehmood probably owns a laptop. The key difference is that deductive arguments lead to necessary conclusions while inductive arguments lead to probable conclusions.
Critical Thinking Skills - Arguments
The document defines and discusses arguments. It provides definitions of arguments from various authors that generally define an argument as consisting of a conclusion supported by one or more premises intended to convince the reader of the conclusion. The document then discusses the key components of an argument - propositions/claims, premises that provide reasons or evidence, and a conclusion. It provides examples of argument indicators and exercises for identifying arguments.
Categorical propositions
The document discusses the theory of deduction and categorical propositions. It explains that Aristotelian logic focuses on arguments with categorical propositions that relate classes or categories to each other. There are four standard forms of categorical propositions - universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E), particular affirmative (I), and particular negative (O). Each relates the subject and predicate classes in a different way. For example, an A proposition states that all members of the subject class are members of the predicate class, while an O proposition states that at least one member of the subject class is not a member of the predicate class.
Traditional Square of opposition
There are four types of opposition between categorical propositions: contradictories, contraries, sub-contraries, and sub-alternation. Contradictories have the same subject and predicate terms but differ in quality and quantity, with one being the denial of the other. Contraries differ only in quality but have the same subject and predicate terms and quantity. Sub-contraries differ in quality but have the same subject, predicate, and quantity. Sub-alternation agrees in quality but differs in quantity. Examples of each type of opposition are provided.
1.1 arguments, premises, and conclusions
Formal Logic : Leacture 01
Chapter 1: Basic Concepts
1.1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
Follow on Facebook:
https://web.facebook.com/learnforgood...
and on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8kUyEAA5ix6Bl5H5gKXo3A
Like, Comment and Share.
Also Subscribe For More Videos.
Learn For Good.
Fallacies
The document provides information about different types of logical fallacies, including fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. It defines what a fallacy is, and categorizes them into two types - fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. For fallacies of relevance, it gives examples and explanations of different types like personal attack, attacking the motive, look who's talking, two wrongs make a right, scare tactics, appeal to emotion, bandwagon argument, straw man, red herring, equivocation, and begging the question. For fallacies of insufficient evidence, it discusses false authority, appeal to ignorance, false dilemma, loaded question, false cause, hasty generalization, slippery slope, weak analogy
Logic unit 1
The document defines key logical terms and concepts used to evaluate arguments, including:
- Logic evaluates arguments by distinguishing good arguments from bad
- Arguments contain premises that aim to support a conclusion
- A good argument has premises that truly support the conclusion, while a bad argument has premises that do not support the conclusion
- Deductive arguments claim the conclusion necessarily follows from premises, while inductive arguments claim the conclusion probably follows
- For deductive arguments, a valid argument has a conclusion that necessarily follows premises, while an invalid argument's conclusion does not necessarily follow premises
- For inductive arguments, a strong argument has an improbable chance premises are true and conclusion false, while a weak argument's conclusion does not
Categorical prepositions
This document discusses categorical propositions and their forms. There are four standard forms of categorical propositions: universal affirmative, universal negative, particular affirmative, and particular negative. Each proposition has a quality (affirmative or negative), quantity (universal or particular), and distribution (the classes designated by the subject and predicate terms). The relationships between the forms are organized in the traditional square of opposition, where propositions can be contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, or correspond with each other based on their qualities and quantities.
Propositions
Propositions can take three forms: categorical, hypothetical, or modal. This document focuses on categorical propositions, which make a direct statement about the relationship between a subject and predicate term. There are four types of categorical propositions based on their quality (affirmative or negative) and quantity (universal or particular): A propositions are universal and affirmative, E propositions are universal and negative, I propositions are particular and affirmative, and O propositions are particular and negative. The distribution of a term depends on the proposition's quality and quantity - universal propositions distribute the subject term, while negative propositions distribute the predicate term.
5.3 Rules And Fallacies
The document outlines five rules for determining the validity of syllogisms:
1) The middle term must be distributed at least once. If not, it commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
2) Terms distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in the premises, otherwise it commits the fallacy of illicit major/minor.
3) Syllogisms cannot have two negative premises or it commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
4) A negative premise requires a negative conclusion and vice versa, otherwise it commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative/negative conclusion from negative/affirmative premises.
5) If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular or it
Inductive and deductive reasoning
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning. It defines them as the two types of arguments: deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support to conclusions while inductive arguments provide probable support. Deductive arguments are based on laws and principles, using premises to logically derive a conclusion. Inductive arguments are based on experience and observation, using specific examples to generalize to broader conclusions. Examples of deductive arguments using major and minor premises are provided, along with discussions of constructing valid deductive arguments and indirect deductive methods like reductio ad absurdum. The differences between strong, weak, and cogent inductive arguments are also outlined.
Types of arguments
This document discusses different types of arguments, including deductive and inductive arguments. It provides examples of various deductive argument forms such as syllogisms (categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive), arguments based on mathematics or definitions. Inductive argument forms discussed include prediction, analogy, generalization, arguments from authority, signs, and causal inference. Specific examples are given to illustrate each type of argument form.
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Slides from the lecture on deductive and inductive arguments, Phil 57 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning") section 3, San Jose State University.
Argument
An argument is a logical structure with premises that lead to a conclusion. Arguments can be evaluated based on validity, truth, and soundness. Validity means the conclusion follows logically from the premises. An argument is sound if it is valid and all premises are true. Inductive and deductive reasoning differ in strengths and weaknesses. Inductive relies on experience while deductive accepts fixed definitions, but may lead to apparently necessary but false conclusions. Fallacies and counterarguments should be considered when critically evaluating arguments.
FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016
The document provides an introduction to common logical fallacies. It defines fallacies as arguments that seem correct but are not valid upon examination. It focuses on three main categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. Under fallacies of relevance, it discusses the argument from ignorance, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to popular opinion, complex question, begging the question, false dilemma, and ad hominem. It also covers fallacies of ambiguity like equivocation and accent. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using fallacious reasoning.
Introduction to Logic
Wanna contact me ??
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654512831314607&set=a.200055700093658.40860.100002676871022&type=1
Analysis - Inductive and Deductive Arguments
The document discusses deductive and inductive arguments. It defines deductive arguments as trying to prove conclusions with inescapable logic, while inductive arguments claim conclusions are probable or likely given the premises. Common patterns of deductive reasoning include hypothetical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, elimination arguments, and arguments based on definitions. Common patterns of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, appeals to authority, causal reasoning, statistics, and analogy.
1.3 Deduction And Induction
Course lecture I developed over section 1.3 of Patrick Hurley\\\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Logic ppt
The document discusses various concepts related to logic and arguments, including:
- Logic is defined as an organized body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop methods for evaluating arguments and constructing strong arguments.
- There are two main types of arguments - deductive arguments, which rely on necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments, which rely on probabilistic reasoning.
- Key elements of arguments are identified as premises, conclusions, and logical structures like categorical syllogisms. Various forms of deductive and inductive arguments are outlined.
Logic arguments and_fallacies
This document defines and discusses different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive and inductive arguments, and explaining how to identify them based on language used. Common types of deductive and inductive arguments are then outlined. The document also discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, and strength as they relate to arguments. Finally, it provides detailed descriptions and examples of many common logical fallacies, categorizing them as fallacies of relevance, weak induction, ambiguity, analogy, or formal fallacies.
Logic introduction
This document provides an introduction to logic. It outlines the objectives of studying logic as sharpening intellect, developing learning ability, strengthening understanding, and promoting clear thinking. Key benefits include supporting reasoning powers, distinguishing good from bad arguments, and learning principles of clear thinking. Logic is defined as the study of correct versus incorrect reasoning. Important concepts discussed include premises, propositions, arguments, sound versus unsound arguments, and laws of logic. The overall aim is to learn how to evaluate arguments.
3.2 Fallacies Of Relevance
Course lecture I developed over section 3.2 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
Course lecture I developed over section 1.4 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Defination unit 4
This document defines different types of definitions and discusses their purposes. There are two main parts to every definition: the definiendum (the term being defined) and the definiens (the definition itself). The document then describes several kinds of definitions: stipulative definitions introduce new meanings; lexical definitions report existing meanings; precisive definitions reduce vagueness; persuasive definitions aim to influence attitudes; and theoretical definitions provide scientifically useful characterizations. The document also distinguishes between genuine disputes involving factual disagreements, merely verbal disputes stemming from semantic ambiguities, and apparently verbal disputes that still involve underlying attitudinal disagreements once clarified.
Apraising analogical argument
Analogical arguments claim that a conclusion is probable based on similarities between two or more things. To evaluate the strength of an analogical argument, six criteria are used: 1) the number of similar entities or cases in the premises, 2) the variety of those cases, 3) the number of similar respects between the cases, 4) the relevance of those respects, 5) any dissimilarities between the cases, and 6) how modest the conclusion's claim is based on the premises. Arguments are stronger when they have more entities, a variety of cases, many relevant similar respects, few dissimilarities, and more modest conclusions.
5.1 Standard Form Mood And Figure
Course lecture I developed over section 5.1 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Syllogisms
This document discusses syllogisms and their validity. It defines categorical and conditional syllogisms, noting that categorical syllogisms use terms while conditional syllogisms use "if-then" statements. For a categorical or conditional syllogism to be valid, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises based on their relationship. Examples are provided to illustrate valid and invalid forms.
The following text material and terms defined at the end comprise .docx
The following text material and terms defined at the end comprise part of what will be asked on the Mid-Term Exam for PHIL 1381.
Logic [excerpt from Stan Baronett, Logic, 2E]
Logic is the study of reasoning. Logic investigates the level of correctness of the reasoning found in arguments. An argument is a group of statements of which one (the conclusion) is claimed to follow from the others (the premises). A statement is a sentence that is either true or false. Every statement is either true or false; these two possibilities are called “truth values.” Premises are statements that contain information intended to provide support or reasons to believe a conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. In order to help recognize arguments, we rely on premise indicator words and phrases, and conclusion indicator words and phrases.
Inference is the term used by logicians to refer to the reasoning process that is expressed by an argument. If a passage expresses a reasoning process—that the conclusion follows from the premises—then we say that it makes an inferential claim. If a passage does not express a reasoning process (explicit or implicit), then it does not make an inferential claim (it is a noninferential passage). One type of noninferential passage is the explanation. An explanation provides reasons for why or how an event occurred. By themselves, explanations are not arguments; however, they can form part of an argument.
There are two types of argument: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. In other words, it is claimed that under the assumption that the premises are true it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. An inductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the premises make the conclusion probable. In other words, it is claimed that, under the assumption that the premises are true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be false.
Revealing the logical form of a deductive argument helps with logical analysis and evaluation. When we evaluate deductive arguments, we use the following concepts: valid, invalid, sound, and unsound. A valid argument is one where, assuming the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. An invalid argument is one where, assuming the premises are true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, a deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises is an invalid argument. When logical analysis shows that a deductive argument is valid, and when truth value analysis of the premises shows that they are all true, then the argument is sound. If a deductive argument is invalid, or if at least one of the premises is false (truth value analysis), then the argument is unsound.
A counterexample to astatement is evidenc.
2 2 t4e_chapter_two_powerpoint_new1
The document discusses the components of an argument, including the thesis/conclusion and premises/evidence. It provides examples of how to describe facts versus inferences and how to analyze arguments by identifying assumptions, locating the conclusion, evaluating the strength of evidence/premises, and putting arguments in standard form. Transition words are also discussed.
More Related Content
What's hot
Categorical prepositions
This document discusses categorical propositions and their forms. There are four standard forms of categorical propositions: universal affirmative, universal negative, particular affirmative, and particular negative. Each proposition has a quality (affirmative or negative), quantity (universal or particular), and distribution (the classes designated by the subject and predicate terms). The relationships between the forms are organized in the traditional square of opposition, where propositions can be contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, or correspond with each other based on their qualities and quantities.
Propositions
Propositions can take three forms: categorical, hypothetical, or modal. This document focuses on categorical propositions, which make a direct statement about the relationship between a subject and predicate term. There are four types of categorical propositions based on their quality (affirmative or negative) and quantity (universal or particular): A propositions are universal and affirmative, E propositions are universal and negative, I propositions are particular and affirmative, and O propositions are particular and negative. The distribution of a term depends on the proposition's quality and quantity - universal propositions distribute the subject term, while negative propositions distribute the predicate term.
5.3 Rules And Fallacies
The document outlines five rules for determining the validity of syllogisms:
1) The middle term must be distributed at least once. If not, it commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
2) Terms distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in the premises, otherwise it commits the fallacy of illicit major/minor.
3) Syllogisms cannot have two negative premises or it commits the fallacy of exclusive premises.
4) A negative premise requires a negative conclusion and vice versa, otherwise it commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative/negative conclusion from negative/affirmative premises.
5) If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular or it
Inductive and deductive reasoning
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning. It defines them as the two types of arguments: deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support to conclusions while inductive arguments provide probable support. Deductive arguments are based on laws and principles, using premises to logically derive a conclusion. Inductive arguments are based on experience and observation, using specific examples to generalize to broader conclusions. Examples of deductive arguments using major and minor premises are provided, along with discussions of constructing valid deductive arguments and indirect deductive methods like reductio ad absurdum. The differences between strong, weak, and cogent inductive arguments are also outlined.
Types of arguments
This document discusses different types of arguments, including deductive and inductive arguments. It provides examples of various deductive argument forms such as syllogisms (categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive), arguments based on mathematics or definitions. Inductive argument forms discussed include prediction, analogy, generalization, arguments from authority, signs, and causal inference. Specific examples are given to illustrate each type of argument form.
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Slides from the lecture on deductive and inductive arguments, Phil 57 ("Logic and Critical Reasoning") section 3, San Jose State University.
Argument
An argument is a logical structure with premises that lead to a conclusion. Arguments can be evaluated based on validity, truth, and soundness. Validity means the conclusion follows logically from the premises. An argument is sound if it is valid and all premises are true. Inductive and deductive reasoning differ in strengths and weaknesses. Inductive relies on experience while deductive accepts fixed definitions, but may lead to apparently necessary but false conclusions. Fallacies and counterarguments should be considered when critically evaluating arguments.
FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016
The document provides an introduction to common logical fallacies. It defines fallacies as arguments that seem correct but are not valid upon examination. It focuses on three main categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. Under fallacies of relevance, it discusses the argument from ignorance, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to popular opinion, complex question, begging the question, false dilemma, and ad hominem. It also covers fallacies of ambiguity like equivocation and accent. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using fallacious reasoning.
Introduction to Logic
Wanna contact me ??
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654512831314607&set=a.200055700093658.40860.100002676871022&type=1
Analysis - Inductive and Deductive Arguments
The document discusses deductive and inductive arguments. It defines deductive arguments as trying to prove conclusions with inescapable logic, while inductive arguments claim conclusions are probable or likely given the premises. Common patterns of deductive reasoning include hypothetical syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, elimination arguments, and arguments based on definitions. Common patterns of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, appeals to authority, causal reasoning, statistics, and analogy.
1.3 Deduction And Induction
Course lecture I developed over section 1.3 of Patrick Hurley\\\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Logic ppt
The document discusses various concepts related to logic and arguments, including:
- Logic is defined as an organized body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. The aim of logic is to develop methods for evaluating arguments and constructing strong arguments.
- There are two main types of arguments - deductive arguments, which rely on necessary reasoning, and inductive arguments, which rely on probabilistic reasoning.
- Key elements of arguments are identified as premises, conclusions, and logical structures like categorical syllogisms. Various forms of deductive and inductive arguments are outlined.
Logic arguments and_fallacies
This document defines and discusses different types of arguments and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive and inductive arguments, and explaining how to identify them based on language used. Common types of deductive and inductive arguments are then outlined. The document also discusses the concepts of validity, soundness, and strength as they relate to arguments. Finally, it provides detailed descriptions and examples of many common logical fallacies, categorizing them as fallacies of relevance, weak induction, ambiguity, analogy, or formal fallacies.
Logic introduction
This document provides an introduction to logic. It outlines the objectives of studying logic as sharpening intellect, developing learning ability, strengthening understanding, and promoting clear thinking. Key benefits include supporting reasoning powers, distinguishing good from bad arguments, and learning principles of clear thinking. Logic is defined as the study of correct versus incorrect reasoning. Important concepts discussed include premises, propositions, arguments, sound versus unsound arguments, and laws of logic. The overall aim is to learn how to evaluate arguments.
3.2 Fallacies Of Relevance
Course lecture I developed over section 3.2 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
Course lecture I developed over section 1.4 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Defination unit 4
This document defines different types of definitions and discusses their purposes. There are two main parts to every definition: the definiendum (the term being defined) and the definiens (the definition itself). The document then describes several kinds of definitions: stipulative definitions introduce new meanings; lexical definitions report existing meanings; precisive definitions reduce vagueness; persuasive definitions aim to influence attitudes; and theoretical definitions provide scientifically useful characterizations. The document also distinguishes between genuine disputes involving factual disagreements, merely verbal disputes stemming from semantic ambiguities, and apparently verbal disputes that still involve underlying attitudinal disagreements once clarified.
Apraising analogical argument
Analogical arguments claim that a conclusion is probable based on similarities between two or more things. To evaluate the strength of an analogical argument, six criteria are used: 1) the number of similar entities or cases in the premises, 2) the variety of those cases, 3) the number of similar respects between the cases, 4) the relevance of those respects, 5) any dissimilarities between the cases, and 6) how modest the conclusion's claim is based on the premises. Arguments are stronger when they have more entities, a variety of cases, many relevant similar respects, few dissimilarities, and more modest conclusions.
5.1 Standard Form Mood And Figure
Course lecture I developed over section 5.1 of Patrick Hurley\'s "A Concise Introduction to Logic".
Syllogisms
This document discusses syllogisms and their validity. It defines categorical and conditional syllogisms, noting that categorical syllogisms use terms while conditional syllogisms use "if-then" statements. For a categorical or conditional syllogism to be valid, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises based on their relationship. Examples are provided to illustrate valid and invalid forms.
What's hot (20)
Similar to Chapter 01 hurley 12e
The following text material and terms defined at the end comprise .docx
The following text material and terms defined at the end comprise part of what will be asked on the Mid-Term Exam for PHIL 1381.
Logic [excerpt from Stan Baronett, Logic, 2E]
Logic is the study of reasoning. Logic investigates the level of correctness of the reasoning found in arguments. An argument is a group of statements of which one (the conclusion) is claimed to follow from the others (the premises). A statement is a sentence that is either true or false. Every statement is either true or false; these two possibilities are called “truth values.” Premises are statements that contain information intended to provide support or reasons to believe a conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises. In order to help recognize arguments, we rely on premise indicator words and phrases, and conclusion indicator words and phrases.
Inference is the term used by logicians to refer to the reasoning process that is expressed by an argument. If a passage expresses a reasoning process—that the conclusion follows from the premises—then we say that it makes an inferential claim. If a passage does not express a reasoning process (explicit or implicit), then it does not make an inferential claim (it is a noninferential passage). One type of noninferential passage is the explanation. An explanation provides reasons for why or how an event occurred. By themselves, explanations are not arguments; however, they can form part of an argument.
There are two types of argument: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. In other words, it is claimed that under the assumption that the premises are true it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. An inductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the premises make the conclusion probable. In other words, it is claimed that, under the assumption that the premises are true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be false.
Revealing the logical form of a deductive argument helps with logical analysis and evaluation. When we evaluate deductive arguments, we use the following concepts: valid, invalid, sound, and unsound. A valid argument is one where, assuming the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. An invalid argument is one where, assuming the premises are true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, a deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises is an invalid argument. When logical analysis shows that a deductive argument is valid, and when truth value analysis of the premises shows that they are all true, then the argument is sound. If a deductive argument is invalid, or if at least one of the premises is false (truth value analysis), then the argument is unsound.
A counterexample to astatement is evidenc.
2 2 t4e_chapter_two_powerpoint_new1
The document discusses the components of an argument, including the thesis/conclusion and premises/evidence. It provides examples of how to describe facts versus inferences and how to analyze arguments by identifying assumptions, locating the conclusion, evaluating the strength of evidence/premises, and putting arguments in standard form. Transition words are also discussed.
Inductive, Deductive, and Fallacies
The document discusses different types of reasoning and logical fallacies. It begins by defining deductive reasoning, which uses facts and rules to arrive at a conclusion, and inductive reasoning, which uses patterns to arrive at a conjecture. Examples of each are provided. Common fallacies are also explained, including fallacies of relevance where the argument is irrelevant, causal fallacies where the cause does not make logical sense, false generalizations from insufficient evidence, and fallacies of ambiguity from equivocal language. Overall, the document provides an overview of deductive and inductive reasoning as well as common logical fallacies that can undermine arguments.
1.1Arguments, Premises, and ConclusionsHow Logical Are You·.docx
1.1Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
How Logical Are You?
· After a momentary absence, you return to your table in the library only to find your smartphone is missing. It was there just minutes earlier. You suspect the student sitting next to you took it. After all, she has a guilty look. Also, there is a bulge in her backpack about the size of your phone, and one of the pouches has a loose strap. Then you hear a “ring” come from the backpack—and it’s the same ringtone that you use on your phone. Which of these pieces of evidence best supports your suspicion?
Answer
The best evidence is undoubtedly the “ring” you hear coming from her backpack, which is the same ringtone as the one on your phone. The weakest evidence is probably the “guilty look.” After all, what, exactly, is a guilty look? The bulge in the backpack and the loose strap are of medium value. The loose strap supports the hypothesis that something was quickly inserted into the backpack. In this section of the chapter you will learn that evidentiary statements form the premises of arguments.
Logic may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own. Among the benefits to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in confidence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.
An argument, in its simplest form, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). Every argument may be placed in either of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad arguments. The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad.
As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this definition in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements:
Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories.
Melatonin helps relieve jet lag.
Political can.
1.1Arguments, Premises, and ConclusionsHow Logical Are You·.docx
1.1Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
How Logical Are You?
· After a momentary absence, you return to your table in the library only to find your smartphone is missing. It was there just minutes earlier. You suspect the student sitting next to you took it. After all, she has a guilty look. Also, there is a bulge in her backpack about the size of your phone, and one of the pouches has a loose strap. Then you hear a “ring” come from the backpack—and it’s the same ringtone that you use on your phone. Which of these pieces of evidence best supports your suspicion?
Answer
The best evidence is undoubtedly the “ring” you hear coming from her backpack, which is the same ringtone as the one on your phone. The weakest evidence is probably the “guilty look.” After all, what, exactly, is a guilty look? The bulge in the backpack and the loose strap are of medium value. The loose strap supports the hypothesis that something was quickly inserted into the backpack. In this section of the chapter you will learn that evidentiary statements form the premises of arguments.
Logic may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own. Among the benefits to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in confidence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.
An argument, in its simplest form, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). Every argument may be placed in either of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad arguments. The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad.
As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this definition in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of statements. A statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements:
Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories.
Melatonin helps relieve jet lag.
Political can ...
Inductive and deductive reasoning
The document discusses inductive and deductive reasoning and arguments. It defines the key terms and provides examples to illustrate the differences between deductive and inductive arguments. Specifically, it notes that deductive arguments provide logically conclusive support for conclusions based on premises, while inductive arguments provide probable support based on observations or experiences. It then examines various types of deductive and inductive arguments as well as common logical fallacies.
5 2 t4e_chapter_fivepowerpoint
This document provides an overview of deductive and inductive reasoning, including the key differences between the two. It defines deductive arguments as those where the premises are sufficient to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can only provide partial or probabilistic support for the conclusion because there is always a "wedge of doubt" between the premises and conclusion. The document also outlines different types of deductive arguments like categorical syllogisms and modus ponens, as well as examples of inductive arguments involving predictions, cause and effect, analogy, and statistics.
ArgumentsA. Arguments are found in many texts and media .docx
Arguments
A.
Arguments are found in many texts and media and it is important to be able to recognize, formulate, and evaluate arguments. Doing well in this class will depend upon whether you can acquire and improve these three skills. We will be concentrating on the arguments found in the philosophy texts we are reading this semester, but this skill is something you should carry with you through the rest of your college career and beyond.
Recognizing an argument is the first step in the process. An argument is where a claim is stated and it is supported by evidence. The claim is the conclusion of the argument and the evidence is known as the premises. In an argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, or, more specifically, the premises connect together in such a way that one can draw an inference from them, i.e., the conclusion.
But recognition of argument is not sufficient. One must also be able to formulate the argument. This involves listing the premises as well as unstated assumptions so one can see more clearly how the conclusion follows from the premises. This task will at first seem tedious and frustrating, but like anything else, the more you practice, the better you will get. Hopefully, you find this exercise beneficial and enlightening.
Here are some sample arguments:
1) All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
2) If there is snow on the ground, it must be cold.
There is snow on the ground.
It must be cold.
3) Animals are either vertebrates or invertebrates.
Walruses, an animal, are not invertebrates.
Walruses are vertebrates.
4) It rained almost every day in April for the last three years.
April is a rainy month.
B.
Not all texts will contain arguments. Some passages will just contain a description, explanation, or dialogue. Here are some examples.
1) Tuesday is the second day of the week.
2) If you do not exercise, you will not be healthy.
3) There are many students who attend state universities. Some explanation for this is that state universities are affordable and offer a variety of disciplines to study.
4) Parent: “You have not cleaned up your room this week.”
Child: “Yes I have.”
Parent: “No, I am afraid your room is still messy.”
Child: “But I have.”
Parent: “No you haven’t, at least not according to me.”
Child: “Well, according to me, I have.”
This last example may seem like an argument because we call it an argument. But this is using the word equivocally, that is using the same word to signify two different things. Example 4 is a disagreement, which does not always constitute an argument. There are no premises to support any claims being made in this example. Further, one should recognize that Example 2 is only a conditional claim and not an argument. A conditional claim is composed of an antecedent and a consequence. One must also affirm the antec.
Lecture 2 arguments
This document provides an introduction to critical thinking and argumentation. It discusses key elements of arguments such as claims, grounds, warrants, backing, and qualifiers. It also introduces argument mapping as a tool to visualize the logical structure of arguments. Additionally, it discusses Stephen Toulmin's model of argument which identifies the core components of arguments and their interrelationships. The document uses examples to illustrate different types of arguments and their structures.
Ch03 basic logical_concepts
The document discusses the key differences between deductive and inductive arguments. It notes that when evaluating an argument, one should consider whether the premises are true and whether the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion. For chapter 3, it will only focus on the latter. It provides examples of deductive and inductive arguments. It also outlines different ways to determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive, such as looking for indicator words, applying tests of strict necessity and charity, and identifying if the argument follows a commonly used pattern of deductive or inductive reasoning.
How to Make an Argument
This lesson gives the basics of how to make an argument. It has lots of examples and fun pictures for students. It is
Logic
These slides are helpful if you really want to know what actually LOGIC is in business world or prospective.
Critical Task 3 Rubric Critical Elements Exemplary (1.docx
Critical Task 3 Rubric
Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Main Elements Includes all of the main
elements and requirements
and cites ample appropriate
support to illustrate each
element
Includes most of the main
elements and requirements
and cites appropriate support
to illustrate each element
Includes some of the main
elements and requirements
Does not include any of the
main elements and
requirements
25
Inquiry and Analysis Explores multiple reasons and
offers accurate and in-depth
analysis of the argument in its
structural form
Explores some reasons and
offers somewhat accurate and
somewhat in-depth analysis of
the argument in its structural
form
Explores minimal reasons and
offers minimally accurate
analysis of the argument in its
structural form
Does not explore reasons and
analysis of evidence and does
not offer accurate analysis of
the argument in its structural
form
25
Integration and
Application
All of the course concepts are
correctly applied
Most of the course concepts
are correctly applied
Some of the course concepts
are correctly applied
Does not correctly apply any of
the course concepts
10
Critical Thinking Demonstrates comprehensive
exploration of issues and ideas
before accepting or forming an
opinion or conclusion about
the argument
Demonstrates moderate
exploration of issues and ideas
before accepting or forming an
opinion or conclusion about
the argument
Demonstrates minimal
exploration of issues and ideas
before accepting or forming an
opinion or conclusion about
the argument
Does not demonstrate
exploration of issues and ideas
before accepting or forming an
opinion or conclusion about
the argument
20
Reflection and
Research
Incorporates a highly pertinent
life goal or issue of significant
importance
Incorporates a life goal or issue
of somewhat significant
importance
Incorporates a life goal or issue
of minimally significant
importance
Does not incorporate a life goal
or issue of significant
importance
10
Writing
(Mechanics/Citations)
No errors related to
organization, grammar and
style, and citations
Minor errors related to
organization, grammar and
style, and citations
Some errors related to
organization, grammar and
style, and citations
Major errors related to
organization, grammar and
style, and citations
10
Earned Total 100%
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS
Hypothetical thinking involves “If . . . then . . .” reasoning. According to some psychologists, the mental model for hypothetical thinking is built into our brain and enables us to understand rules and predict the consequences of our actions. We’ll be looking at the use of hypothetical reasoning in ethics in greater depth in Chapter 9. Hypothetical arguments are also a basic building block of computer programs.
A hypothetical syllogism is a form of deductive.
Inductive And Deductive Argument.pptx
Deductive Argument
For a deductive argument, if all its premises are true, its conclusion is necessarily true (or it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false.)
I.e., the truth of premises guarantees the truth of conclusion.
Example
Either you work hard or you will fail the test.
You do not work hard.
Therefore, you will fail the test.
3 Types of Possibility
Technological possibility:
e.g.
Going to the moon is technological possible, but going to Mercury is not.
Physical possibility:
e.g.
Going to Mercury is physical possible, but making water boil at 95 C under one atmospheric pressure is not.
Logical possibility:
e.g.
Making water boil at 95 C under one atmospheric pressure is logical possible, but drawing a triangle with 4 angles is not.
When we talk about deductive arguments, we have already presupposed that the arguments are successful or valid deductive arguments.
The conclusion of a valid argument is called a valid conclusion.
For an unsuccessful deductive argument (the premises are intended to guarantee the conclusion but fail to do so), we call it an invalid argument.
A deductive argument may be valid or invalid, there is nothing in between.
Whether a deductive argument is valid or invalid depends on its form or structure, not on its content.
The above argument is valid because it has this valid form:
p or q.
Not-p.
Therefore, q.
p and q are statement variables.
A valid argument may have false conclusion if it has false premises.
Example:
CY Leung is either a genius or an idiot.
He is not an idiot.
Therefore, He is a genius.
In order to guarantee the truth of conclusion, we have to make sure all the premises are true.
When all the premises of a valid argument are true, the argument is called a “sound argument”.
And the conclusion of a sound argument is called a sound conclusion.
If an argument is invalid or has false premises, it is unsound.
On the other hand, the fact that an argument is invalid does not entail that its conclusion is false.
• It just means that its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
• You can consider a valid argument structure as a truth-keeping machine:
• When you input T information into it, it will output T information.
• When you input F information into it, it will output T or F information
Inductive Argument:
A typical example of inductive argument:
Swan1 is white.
Swan2 is white.
Swan3 is white.
…
Swann is white.
________________
All swans are white.
Another typical example:
An event of type B follows an event of type A at time t1.
An event of type B follows an event of type A at time t2.
…
An event of type B follows an event of type A at time tn.
___________________________
A causes B.
Many people think that the characteristic of inductive arguments is arguing from particular to general.
However, deductive arguments may also argue from particular to general.
Example:
I have two cats, Fluffy and Garfield.
Fluffy does not eat fish.
Garfield does not eat fish either.
Therefore, All of m
Contextual practice2033
The document provides an overview of contextual thinking and logical thinking. It defines contextual thinking as evaluating symptoms as part of a complex continuum rather than a specific cause. It also discusses different types of definitions such as descriptive, stipulative, and programmatic definitions. The document further explores logical thinking and fallacies including fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity. It discusses deductive and inductive reasoning. The remainder of the document outlines various weeks of a course that cover topics like creative thinking, mind mapping, and methods of thinking.
critical thinking usms bhit shah
This document provides an overview of arguments, including their definition, structure, types, and distinguishing characteristics. It defines an argument as a claim supported by one or more premises intended to persuade others of the claim's truth. Key points include:
- Arguments consist of a conclusion and one or more premises providing evidence or reasons for accepting the conclusion.
- Deductive arguments guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true, while inductive arguments make the conclusion likely but not certain.
- For an argument to be valid or strong, its premises must be plausible, truthful, and relevant to supporting the conclusion.
- Explanations, reports, and hypothetical statements differ from arguments in that they
Argument Intro
The document discusses the key parts of an argument, including the main claim, premises, and conclusion. It defines these components and explains that an argument takes a stand supported by evidence to convince readers to accept a particular perspective. Specifically, it notes that the main claim is the central assertion, premises provide evidence to connect the claim to the conclusion, and the conclusion follows logically from the claim and premises.
reportingrw.pptx
This document provides information about making inferences and formulating assertions and counterclaims. It is a reading and writing guide created by Group #3, led by Triztan Paul Duran. The document defines key terms like inferences, assertions, and counterclaims. It explains different types of each, such as deductive vs inductive inferences. Steps are provided for making inferences from sources. Guidelines are given for formulating assertions to communicate ideas and support arguments. The importance of counterclaims in debates to challenge assertions is discussed. Types of counterclaims like direct refutations are outlined.
Week 14 April 28 & 30 - Love and Death Castillo, Chap. 9 .docx
Week 14: April 28 & 30 - Love and Death
Castillo, Chap. 9 “Sofia, Who Would Never Again Let Her Husband Have the Last Word…”
Chap. 10 “Wherein Sofia Discovers La Loca’s Playmate…”
Chap. 11 “The Marriage of Sofia’s Faithful Daughter to her Cousin”
Chap. 12 “Of the Hideous Crime of Francisco el Penitente…”
1. For all chapters, identify the four levels of analysis: 1) metaphoric/symbolic; 2) literary; 3) sociological; and spiritual.
Chapter 9 “Sofia, Who Would Never Again Let Her Husband Have the Last Word…”
2. In this chapter, Sofia begins a transformation of her own. What is this transformation and what role does Esperanza play?Chapter 10
3. In this chapter, we return to La Loca, reading from her point of view. What do we learn from this, the youngest of Sofi’s daughters?
4. As Fe leaves Sofia’s home we realize she has not come to terms with what she went through when Tom broke off the engagement. What is Fe like now? Has she also changed?
5. What about Esperanza, what news about her? And what about “La Llorona, Chicana international astral-traveler”?
Chapter 11
6. Much happens to Fe in this chapter. Be able to recount all of Fe’s experiences and the relationship to big business, the U.S. government, and the medical profession.Chapter 12
7. What to make of this last chapter in Caridad and Francisco’s lives? What are the recurring themes and metaphors/symbolizes, etc.?
In preparation for the Opposing Viewpoints short paper due in Module Five, you will outline a position (thesis) on a topic of your choosing.
Using the Prewriting Template provided, outline two to three of your reasons for supporting your thesis and then also outline the objection’s position. Please note that the main purpose of this assignment is to formulate the strongest possible objection to your own position before responding to it.
You will be required to use at least four outside (i.e., other than the textbook) sources for this paper, two for each side of the issue. You do not need to do extensive reearch before completing the outline.
Possible topics: Affirmative Action, Abortion, State-Financed Health Care, Flat Tax...or anything you want. It is best to choose a position for which you can find reasonable arguments on both sides.
Click on the title above to turn in your outline.
First Paper (Opposing Viewpoints):
Critical Elements
Distinguished
Proficient
Emerging
Not Evident
Value
Main Elements
Includes almost all of the main elements and requirements and cites ample appropriate support to illustrate each element
(23-25)
Includes most of the main elements and requirements and cites appropriate support to illustrate each element
(20-22)
Includes some of the main elements and requirements
(18-19)
Does not include any of the main elements and requirements
(0-17)
25
Inquiry and Analysis
Explores multiple reasons and offers in-depth analysis of evidence to make informed conclusions about the issue
(18-20)
Explores so.
Similar to Chapter 01 hurley 12e (20)
The following text material and terms defined at the end comprise .docx
The following text material and terms defined at the end comprise .docx
1.1Arguments, Premises, and ConclusionsHow Logical Are You·.docx
1.1Arguments, Premises, and ConclusionsHow Logical Are You·.docx
1.1Arguments, Premises, and ConclusionsHow Logical Are You·.docx
1.1Arguments, Premises, and ConclusionsHow Logical Are You·.docx
ArgumentsA. Arguments are found in many texts and media .docx
ArgumentsA. Arguments are found in many texts and media .docx
Critical Task 3 Rubric Critical Elements Exemplary (1.docx
Critical Task 3 Rubric Critical Elements Exemplary (1.docx
Week 14 April 28 & 30 - Love and Death Castillo, Chap. 9 .docx
Week 14 April 28 & 30 - Love and Death Castillo, Chap. 9 .docx
More from Kerrin McMahan
Chapter 14 hurley 12e
The document distinguishes science from superstition. Science involves hypotheses that are evaluated based on evidentiary support, objectivity, and integrity. Scientific evidence comes from measurable data expressed mathematically from controlled experiments that can be replicated. Superstitions do not require this type of reliable evidence and are often used to satisfy emotional needs rather than be objectively true. Distinguishing science from superstition is important for advancing knowledge and understanding reality.
Chapter 09 hurley 12e
Analogical reasoning involves comparing two entities or instances that share some attributes and using that comparison to draw a conclusion about another attribute. Arguments from analogy can vary in strength based on factors like the number and relevance of similarities between the primary and secondary analogues. Analogical reasoning is commonly used in legal arguments because the English common law system relies heavily on precedent from past cases. However, analogies in law can be complex due to diverse court systems and the creative reasoning of lawyers and judges.
Chapter 06 hurley 12e
This document defines and explains logical concepts such as simple and compound statements, truth tables, logical operators like negation and conjunction, and argument validity. It discusses translating statements into symbolic logic using variables, determining statement truth values from truth tables, and classifying statements as tautologies, contradictions, or contingencies. Common valid argument forms like modus ponens and modus tollens are also defined.
Chapter 05 hurley 12e
The document discusses categorical syllogisms, including:
1. An example of a categorical syllogism in standard form and the four conditions it must meet.
2. The mood and figure of categorical syllogisms determine their validity.
3. Validity can be tested using Venn diagrams or by applying Boolean rules such as requiring the middle term be distributed at least once.
Chapter 04 hurley 12e
The document discusses categorical propositions and their logical properties. It covers:
- The standard form of categorical propositions involving quantifiers like "all" and "some."
- The quality and quantity of propositions.
- Letter names assigned to proposition types.
- The distribution of terms and existential import of propositions.
- Systems for representing propositions diagrammatically, like Venn diagrams and the square of opposition.
- Conversions between propositions through operations like conversion, obversion, and contraposition.
- Testing proposition validity and logical fallacies from Boolean and Aristotelian perspectives.
Chapter 03 hurley 12e
This document defines and provides examples of different types of logical fallacies. It discusses formal fallacies that can be identified by examining the structure of an argument, as well as informal fallacies that require examining the argument's content. Specific informal fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and illicit transference are defined. Detecting fallacies in ordinary arguments can be difficult as variations exist, and people may commit fallacies intentionally, through carelessness, or due to influence of their worldview.
Chapter 02 hurley 12e
This document discusses various aspects of defining terms and concepts in language. It outlines two main linguistic functions: conveying cognitive meaning or information, and conveying emotive meaning or feelings. It also discusses different types of definitions, including stipulative, lexical, theoretical, and persuasive definitions. The document provides examples and guidelines for properly constructing definitions, such as avoiding circularity, being affirmative where possible, and indicating proper context.
More from Kerrin McMahan (7)
Recently uploaded
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docx
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
Digital Artifact 1 - 10VCD Environments Unit
Digital Artifact 1 - 10VCD Environments Unit - NGV Pavilion Concept Design
CACJapan - GROUP Presentation 1- Wk 4.pdf
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)Academy of Science of South Africa
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.Advantages and Disadvantages of CMS from an SEO Perspective
Advantages and Disadvantages of CMS from an SEO Perspective
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in Education
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS Template 2023-2024 by: Irene S. Rueco
What is the purpose of studying mathematics.pptx
Students often ask about what the purpose is for their learning. This PowerPoint highlights some really important reasons to study Mathematics.
The Diamonds of 2023-2024 in the IGRA collection
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
The History of Stoke Newington Street Names
Presented at the Stoke Newington Literary Festival on 9th June 2024
www.StokeNewingtonHistory.com
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar KanvariaANATOMY AND BIOMECHANICS OF HIP JOINT.pdf
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Recently uploaded (20)
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)
South African Journal of Science: Writing with integrity workshop (2024)
Advantages and Disadvantages of CMS from an SEO Perspective
Advantages and Disadvantages of CMS from an SEO Perspective
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
RPMS TEMPLATE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR TEACHER 1 TO TEACHER 3
Film vocab for eal 3 students: Australia the movie
Film vocab for eal 3 students: Australia the movie
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Chapter 01 hurley 12e
- 1. Logic: The Science that Evaluates Arguments ◦ Logic teaches us to develop a system of methods and principles to use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others to guide us in constructing arguments of our own.
- 2. The Nature of Arguments: Premises and Conclusions ◦ An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion).
- 3. Premise Indicators and Conclusion Indicators ◦ Some typical conclusion indicators: therefore, accordingly, entails that, etc. ◦ Some typical premise indicators: since, in that, seeing that, etc.
- 4. Typical structure of premises and conclusions:
- 5. Arguments vs. Nonarguments ◦ At least one statement must claim to present evidence or reasons. ◦ The alleged evidence must claim to support or imply something.
- 6. Simple Noninferential Passages: Basic Nonarguments ◦ Warning ◦ Piece of advice ◦ Statement of belief or opinion ◦ Report ◦ Loosely associated statements Expository Passages: Proof vs. Elaboration
- 7. Illustrations: Aid in Exemplification
- 8. Explanations: “Why Something is the Case” vs. “That Something is the Case” ◦ Golf balls have a dimpled surface because dimples reduce air drag, causing the ball to travel farther.
- 9. Conditional Statements by Themselves Are Not Arguments ◦ If professional football incites violence in the home, then we should reconsider giving widespread approval to the sport.
- 10. Deduction and Induction: Necessity vs. Probability ◦ Deductive arguments incorporate the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. ◦ Inductive arguments claim that it is improbable that the conclusion be false if the premises are true.
- 11. Common Types of Deductive Arguments: Based on Mathematics, From Definition, Categorical, Hypothetical and Disjunctive Syllogisms ◦ Example: Meerkats are members of the mongoose family. All members of the mongoose family are carnivores. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the meerkat is a carnivore.
- 12. Common Types of Inductive Arguments: Prediction, Analogy, From Authority, Based On Signs, Causal Inference ◦ Example: The meerkat is closely related to the suricat. The suricat thrives on beetle larvae. Therefore, probably the meerkat thrives on beetle larvae.
- 13. Valid vs. Invalid Deductive Arguments ◦ Valid deductive arguments are arguments in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. ◦ Invalid deductive arguments are arguments in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true.
- 14. Soundness: Validity plus all true premises Sound Argument = Valid argument + All true premises Example: All flowers are plants. All daisies are flowers. Therefore, all daisies are plants.
- 15. Strong vs. Weak Inductive Arguments ◦ Strong inductive arguments are arguments in which it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true. In such arguments, the conclusion does probably follow from the premises. ◦ Conversely, a weak inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
- 16. Cogent Argument = Strong Argument + All true premises ◦ Example: Every previous U.S. president was older than 40. Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be older than 40.
- 17. Form as determinative of validity ◦ All valid arguments take this form: All a are b. All c are a. All c are b.
- 18. Creating a Substitution Instance All a are b. All sporting events are engaging pastimes. All c are a. All baseball games are sporting events. All c are b. All baseball games are engaging pastimes. This argument is a substitution instance of the argument form. Any substitution instance of a valid argument form is a valid argument.
- 19. The Counterexample Method 1. Isolate the form All migratory waterfowl are birds that fly south for the winter. All geese are migratory waterfowl. Therefore, all geese are birds that fly south for the winter.
- 20. 2. Construct a Substitution Instance with true premises and a false conclusion The form of the argument is All a are b. All c are a. All c are b.
- 21. This form is identical to the form we just considered and is valid. ◦ Now consider an invalid argument form: All a are b. All c are b. All a are c.
- 22. Vertical Patterns: Conclusions subsequently become premises ◦ The vertical pattern consists of a series of arguments in which a conclusion of a logically prior argument becomes a premise of a subsequent argument.
- 23. Horizontal Patterns: When separate premises independently support a conclusion ◦ The horizontal pattern consists of a single argument in which two or more premises provide independent support for a single conclusion. If one premise was omitted, the other(s) would continue to support the conclusion in the same way.
- 24. Conjoint Premises: When separate premises can only support a conclusion together ◦ These premises depend on one another so closely that if one were omitted, the support that the others provide would be diminished or destroyed.
- 25. Multiple Conclusion: When a premise supports more than one conclusion in a passage ◦ Although no single argument can have more than one conclusion, we evaluate such passages as consisting of two or more arguments, but we join the two conclusions with a bracket.