Example Argument Essay
•
2 likes•4 views
This document discusses and provides examples of valid and invalid arguments. A valid argument has true premises that logically lead to a true conclusion. An example given is an argument in medical diagnosis that fulfills the criteria for a valid argument. An invalid argument is one where the premises could be true but the conclusion does not necessarily follow from them. An example of an invalid argument is provided, where the premises do not guarantee the conclusion that Johnny Depp is an actor even if he is a robot.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
Recommended
Statement assumption cetking must do 50 questions pdf for maharashtra mba ce...
The document provides information about Cetking's 10 workshops for verbal reasoning. Cetking is known for providing the best coaching for exams like CET, CAT, CMAT in India. The workshops aim to help students master verbal reasoning, which is an important topic where 5 questions are typically asked in competitive exams. The workshops cover 10 different sessions to comprehensively cover verbal reasoning. Cetking can be contacted via their website or phone number for more information about enrolling in these workshops.
1Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument· If A Then B.docx
1
Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument
· If A Then B
· If capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve then, capital punishment is morally right.
· A
· capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve.
· Therefore, B
· Therefore, capital punishment is morally right.
The Point of the Paper
Your paper is a
critical evaluation of the argument
that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.
It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.
Common ProblemsReally a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusionDid not evaluate the argumentOnly discussed premise two, reallyJustified Premise One, then abandoned itDid not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it worksJustifications that simply restate the argument in more wordsSAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve
(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.
Position – one sentence!At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.
ARGUMENTImmediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the con.
1Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument· If A Then B.docx
1
Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument
· If A Then B
· If capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve then, capital punishment is morally right.
· A
· capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve.
· Therefore, B
· Therefore, capital punishment is morally right.
The Point of the Paper
Your paper is a
critical evaluation of the argument
that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.
It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.
Common ProblemsReally a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusionDid not evaluate the argumentOnly discussed premise two, reallyJustified Premise One, then abandoned itDid not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it worksJustifications that simply restate the argument in more wordsSAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve
(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.
Position – one sentence!At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.
ARGUMENTImmediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the con ...
Reflect back on what you have learned in this course about how to .docx
This document provides an overview of key concepts in deductive reasoning, including validity, soundness, and deduction. It defines validity as an argument where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Soundness requires an argument to be both valid and have all true premises. Deduction refers specifically to arguments intended to be valid. Several examples of valid, invalid, sound, and unsound arguments are analyzed in terms of these concepts.
Midterm review logic 105 spring 2019
This document provides information about an upcoming midterm review for a logic course. It includes details about the exam such as its format, date, submission requirements, and policies. It also previews some of the key concepts that will be covered, including recognizing and diagramming arguments, deductive vs. inductive reasoning, and identifying common logical fallacies. The review aims to prepare students for a multiple choice exam on logical reasoning concepts that is due by March 8th at 11:59 PM with only one attempt allowed and no late submissions accepted.
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.
Copy of midterm review logic 105 fall 2018.pptx
This 3-sentence summary provides the high-level information about the document:
The document outlines a midterm review for a logic course, including that there will be 35 multiple choice, true/false questions worth a total of 100 points. Students have one attempt to complete the exam with no time limit by the due date of October 19th at 11:59 PM with no late submissions or exceptions allowed. The document also provides tips for students to prepare and review key concepts that will be covered on the exam such as recognizing arguments, deductive vs inductive arguments, validity and soundness, and common fallacies.
Midterm review logic 105 summer 2018
This midterm review document provides information about an upcoming logic exam for Rosibel O'Brien-Cruz's Logic 105 course. The exam will have 35 multiple choice, true/false, and short answer questions worth a total of 100 points. Students have one attempt to complete the exam with no time limit by July 3rd at 11:59 PM, and no late submissions will be accepted. The document then provides tips for preparing for the exam, including printing notes, using pencil and paper to organize thoughts, and ensuring a reliable internet connection. It also previews exam content on statements, arguments, deductive vs inductive arguments, and definitions.
Recommended
Statement assumption cetking must do 50 questions pdf for maharashtra mba ce...
The document provides information about Cetking's 10 workshops for verbal reasoning. Cetking is known for providing the best coaching for exams like CET, CAT, CMAT in India. The workshops aim to help students master verbal reasoning, which is an important topic where 5 questions are typically asked in competitive exams. The workshops cover 10 different sessions to comprehensively cover verbal reasoning. Cetking can be contacted via their website or phone number for more information about enrolling in these workshops.
1Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument· If A Then B.docx
1
Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument
· If A Then B
· If capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve then, capital punishment is morally right.
· A
· capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve.
· Therefore, B
· Therefore, capital punishment is morally right.
The Point of the Paper
Your paper is a
critical evaluation of the argument
that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.
It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.
Common ProblemsReally a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusionDid not evaluate the argumentOnly discussed premise two, reallyJustified Premise One, then abandoned itDid not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it worksJustifications that simply restate the argument in more wordsSAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve
(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.
Position – one sentence!At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.
ARGUMENTImmediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the con.
1Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument· If A Then B.docx
1
Paper #1 Topic (Capital Punishment)Argument
· If A Then B
· If capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve then, capital punishment is morally right.
· A
· capital punishment is an appropriate expression of the anger society feels about horrible crimes, and it is simply what such criminals deserve.
· Therefore, B
· Therefore, capital punishment is morally right.
The Point of the Paper
Your paper is a
critical evaluation of the argument
that someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her position on this problem.
It is NOT a discussion of the conclusion, or of the second premise.
Common ProblemsReally a paper “pro-and-con” the conclusionDid not evaluate the argumentOnly discussed premise two, reallyJustified Premise One, then abandoned itDid not try hard enough to understand what the theory is and how it worksJustifications that simply restate the argument in more wordsSAY WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT!!
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve
(or that the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually two or three paragraphs.
Position – one sentence!At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the problem. For example, if you are going to discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is about an argument that supports some position on the problem you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here. You should note two important things: the position stated here should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the paper is normally one or two sentences long.
ARGUMENTImmediately following the position statement you should present the argument that supports the position (either yours or someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a horizontal line separating the premises from the con ...
Reflect back on what you have learned in this course about how to .docx
This document provides an overview of key concepts in deductive reasoning, including validity, soundness, and deduction. It defines validity as an argument where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Soundness requires an argument to be both valid and have all true premises. Deduction refers specifically to arguments intended to be valid. Several examples of valid, invalid, sound, and unsound arguments are analyzed in terms of these concepts.
Midterm review logic 105 spring 2019
This document provides information about an upcoming midterm review for a logic course. It includes details about the exam such as its format, date, submission requirements, and policies. It also previews some of the key concepts that will be covered, including recognizing and diagramming arguments, deductive vs. inductive reasoning, and identifying common logical fallacies. The review aims to prepare students for a multiple choice exam on logical reasoning concepts that is due by March 8th at 11:59 PM with only one attempt allowed and no late submissions accepted.
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.
Copy of midterm review logic 105 fall 2018.pptx
This 3-sentence summary provides the high-level information about the document:
The document outlines a midterm review for a logic course, including that there will be 35 multiple choice, true/false questions worth a total of 100 points. Students have one attempt to complete the exam with no time limit by the due date of October 19th at 11:59 PM with no late submissions or exceptions allowed. The document also provides tips for students to prepare and review key concepts that will be covered on the exam such as recognizing arguments, deductive vs inductive arguments, validity and soundness, and common fallacies.
Midterm review logic 105 summer 2018
This midterm review document provides information about an upcoming logic exam for Rosibel O'Brien-Cruz's Logic 105 course. The exam will have 35 multiple choice, true/false, and short answer questions worth a total of 100 points. Students have one attempt to complete the exam with no time limit by July 3rd at 11:59 PM, and no late submissions will be accepted. The document then provides tips for preparing for the exam, including printing notes, using pencil and paper to organize thoughts, and ensuring a reliable internet connection. It also previews exam content on statements, arguments, deductive vs inductive arguments, and definitions.
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Deductive Reasoning
moodboard/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Define basic key terms and concepts within deductive reasoning.
2. Use variables to represent an argument’s logical form.
3. Use the counterexample method to evaluate an argument’s validity.
4. Categorize different types of deductive arguments.
5. Analyze the various statements—and the relationships between them—in categorical arguments.
6. Evaluate categorical syllogisms using the rules of the syllogism and Venn diagrams.
7. Differentiate between sorites and enthymemes.
By now you should be familiar with how the field of logic views arguments: An argument is just a collection of sentences, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which, the premises, provide support for the conclusion. You have also learned that not every collection of sentences is an argument. Stories, explanations, questions, and debates are not arguments, for example. The essential feature of an argument is that the premises support, prove, or give evidence for the conclusion. This relationship of support is what makes a collection of sentences an argument and is the special concern of logic. For the next four chapters, we will be taking a closer look at the ways in which premises might support a conclusion. This chapter discusses deductive reasoning, with a specific focus on categorical logic.3.1 Basic Concepts in Deductive Reasoning
As noted in Chapter 2, at the broadest level there are two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. The difference between these types is largely a matter of the strength of the connection between premises and conclusion. Inductive arguments are defined and discussed in Chapter 5; this chapter focuses on deductive arguments. In this section we will learn about three central concepts: validity, soundness, and deduction.
Validity
Deductive arguments aim to achieve validity, which is an extremely strong connection between the premises and the conclusion. In logic, the word valid is only applied to arguments; therefore, when the concept of validity is discussed in this text, it is solely in reference to arguments, and not to claims, points, or positions. Those expressions may have other uses in other fields, but in logic, validity is a strict notion that has to do with the strength of the connection between an argument’s premises and conclusion.
To reiterate, an argument is a collection of sentences, one of which (the conclusion) is supposed to follow from the others (the premises). A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion; in other words, it is an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Notice that the definition of valid does not say anything about whether the premises are actually true, just whether the conclusion could be false if the premises were true. As an example, here is a silly but valid ar.
introduction to critical thinking.ppt
Critical thinking involves systematically evaluating beliefs and statements using rational standards. It examines life through examining one's beliefs, as Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. Critical thinking uses distinct procedures like identifying claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments to rationally assess existing beliefs and form new ones. Common impediments include self-interested, group, and subjective thinking. Deductive arguments aim to conclusively support conclusions while inductive arguments probably support conclusions. Fallacies involve irrelevant or unacceptable premises while various reasoning patterns help strengthen arguments.
Standard Form ArgumentsDiscussion TitleThe central tool of.docx
Standard Form Arguments
Discussion Title
The central tool of logic is the argument. Accordingly, constructing good arguments is the central element of this course. Each writing assignment in this course will give you an opportunity to construct and improve upon an argument that you will develop as the course progresses. This discussion post allows you to begin the process of developing your argument by presenting good reasoning on both sides of an issue.
The requirement for this discussion is a minimum of four posts on four separate days, including at least two substantive responses to peers. The total combined word count for all of your posts for this discussion, counted together, should be at least 400 words. Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to complete the discussion properly. In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by responding substantively to the replies that others make to you as well. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can.
Prepare: To prepare for this discussion, make sure to read the assigned chapters of the primary text and to review the required resources, including the videos about arguments (in the “Lectures” link on the left). Before responding to the prompt, make sure as well to participate in the interactive scenario at the top of this page titledThe Raise to gain more appreciation of the importance of constructing good arguments in life.
Reflect: Choose a topic from thePHI103 Final Paper Options list. It should be a topic that you find interesting, but also for which you will be able defend a position with careful logical reasoning. Construct the strongest argument that you can on each side of the issue. Strengthen your arguments by contemplating possible objections to each argument, and revise your arguments in light of the objections. Continue this process until you feel that your arguments for each side are as convincing as you can possibly make them.
Write: Present your two arguments (one on each side of the issue) in standard form (with each premise and conclusion on a separate line) on the topic you selected from thePHI103 Final Paper Options list. The two arguments should defend different positions on the topic. For example, if your topic was the existence of Santa Claus, then you would present one argument for the claim that Santa Claus does exist and another argument that Santa Claus does not exist. The premises of each argument will present reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true.
Here is an example of what an argument in standard form looks like:
Premise 1: If Santa Claus exists, then he lives at the North Pole.
Prem.
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
207
6Deduction and Induction:
Putting It All Together
Wavebreakmedia Ltd./Thinkstock and GoldenShrimp/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Compare and contrast the advantages of deduction and induction.
2. Explain why one might choose an inductive argument over a deductive argument.
3. Analyze an argument for its deductive and inductive components.
4. Explain the use of induction within the hypothetico–deductive method.
5. Compare and contrast falsification and confirmation within scientific inquiry.
6. Describe the combined use of induction and deduction within scientific reasoning.
7. Explain the role of inference to the best explanation in science and in daily life.
har85668_06_c06_207-238.indd 207 4/9/15 11:38 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Now that you have learned something about deduction and induction, you may be wondering
why we need both. This chapter is devoted to answering that question. We will start by learn-
ing a bit more about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and how the
two types of reasoning can work together. After that, we will move on to explore how scien-
tific reasoning applies to both types of reasoning to achieve spectacular results. Arguments
with both inductive and deductive elements are very common. Recognizing the advantages
and disadvantages of each type can help you build better arguments. We will also investigate
another very useful type of inference, known as inference to the best explanation, and explore
its advantages.
6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Remember that in logic, the difference between induction and deduction lies in the connec-
tion between the premises and conclusion. Deductive arguments aim for an absolute connec-
tion, one in which it is impossible that the premises could all be true and the conclusion false.
Arguments that achieve this aim are called valid. Inductive arguments aim for a probable
connection, one in which, if all the premises are true, the conclusion is more likely to be true
than it would be otherwise. Arguments that achieve this aim are called strong. (For a discus-
sion on common misconceptions about the meanings of induction and deduction, see A Closer
Look: Doesn’t Induction Mean Going From Specific to General?). Recall from Chapter 5 that
inductive strength is the counterpart of deductive validity, and cogency is the inductive coun-
terpart of deductive soundness. One of the purposes of this chapter is to properly understand
the differences and connections between these two major types of reasoning.
There is another important difference
between deductive and inductive rea-
soning. As discussed in Chapter 5, if
you add another premise to an induc-
tive argument, the argument may
become either stronger or weaker. For
example, suppose you ar.
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
207
6Deduction and Induction:
Putting It All Together
Wavebreakmedia Ltd./Thinkstock and GoldenShrimp/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Compare and contrast the advantages of deduction and induction.
2. Explain why one might choose an inductive argument over a deductive argument.
3. Analyze an argument for its deductive and inductive components.
4. Explain the use of induction within the hypothetico–deductive method.
5. Compare and contrast falsification and confirmation within scientific inquiry.
6. Describe the combined use of induction and deduction within scientific reasoning.
7. Explain the role of inference to the best explanation in science and in daily life.
har85668_06_c06_207-238.indd 207 4/9/15 11:38 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Now that you have learned something about deduction and induction, you may be wondering
why we need both. This chapter is devoted to answering that question. We will start by learn-
ing a bit more about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and how the
two types of reasoning can work together. After that, we will move on to explore how scien-
tific reasoning applies to both types of reasoning to achieve spectacular results. Arguments
with both inductive and deductive elements are very common. Recognizing the advantages
and disadvantages of each type can help you build better arguments. We will also investigate
another very useful type of inference, known as inference to the best explanation, and explore
its advantages.
6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Remember that in logic, the difference between induction and deduction lies in the connec-
tion between the premises and conclusion. Deductive arguments aim for an absolute connec-
tion, one in which it is impossible that the premises could all be true and the conclusion false.
Arguments that achieve this aim are called valid. Inductive arguments aim for a probable
connection, one in which, if all the premises are true, the conclusion is more likely to be true
than it would be otherwise. Arguments that achieve this aim are called strong. (For a discus-
sion on common misconceptions about the meanings of induction and deduction, see A Closer
Look: Doesn’t Induction Mean Going From Specific to General?). Recall from Chapter 5 that
inductive strength is the counterpart of deductive validity, and cogency is the inductive coun-
terpart of deductive soundness. One of the purposes of this chapter is to properly understand
the differences and connections between these two major types of reasoning.
There is another important difference
between deductive and inductive rea-
soning. As discussed in Chapter 5, if
you add another premise to an induc-
tive argument, the argument may
become either stronger or weaker. For
example, suppose you ar ...
The Moral Good in Three TraditionalEthical Theories© Glori.docx
The Moral Good
in Three Traditional
Ethical Theories
© Gloria Zúñiga y Postigo
The words “ethics” and “morality” are often used interchangeably. But these actually mean different things. One cannot speak of what is “ethical” until one is clear about what one means by “moral.” In other words, the meaning of the word “ethical” is dependent on the meaning of the word “moral.” So one must start by defining what is “moral.” But when we start looking into this, we find that there are different ways in which this words “moral” or “morality” are understood. This is when we first realize that addressing ethics and morality is much more complicated that what we had initially thought. So let’s proceed methodically.
The relation between ethics and morality is as follows:
Introduction
Ethics = the application of moral principles in ordinary life
(e.g., rules for action, codes of ethics in business)
Morality = all that involves the right and wrong
Now, let’s examine what is morality by asking this question: How do we know what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do? The answer is this that the right thing to do targets the good, and the wrong thing to do is anything that targets evil. These relations can be seen more clearly in this way:
The right thing to do the good
The wrong thing to do evil
Summation
Putting it all together, we have this:
Ethics
Morality
Doing what is right
The Moral Good
practical life
moral reasoning
The main point to remember is that in order to examine ethics, we must first examine morality. And in order to examine morality, one must understand what is meant by the moral good.
In the next few slides, you will see how three different ethical theories define what is the moral good. This will help you decide which understanding of morality to accept and, in turn, also know how to be ethical in practical life.
Warning: Make sure to employ the term “duty” in deontology only in the sense indicated on the slide. Avoid employing “duty” in the ordinary sense, which means to do what one is assigned to do or what is suitable to one’s role.
The Moral Good
John Stuart Mill
Mill’s UtilitarianismMoral GoodPLEASURE
(the kind of happiness that can be obtained from physical or noble satisfactions) How to Achieve ItBy acting in ways that bring about the following consequences:
Increase pleasure or reduce pain
Results that apply not only to self
but also as many as possible
Those that result from any means
that made them possiblePurposeTo maximize pleasure, or to reduce suffering
Immanuel Kant
Kant’s DeontologyMoral Good DUTY
(understood as that which is governed by the Categorical Imperative)How to
Achieve ItBy applying the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
.
Mistakes in Reasoning
This document discusses different types of inductive arguments and fallacies in reasoning. It provides examples and analysis of several common fallacies, including hasty generalization, weak analogy, accident, post hoc, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, and question begging. The key points are that memorizing fallacies is less useful than understanding the criteria to evaluate different types of arguments, and that some supposed fallacies are better understood as factual errors or criticisms rather than logical flaws.
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.
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning: The World of Fallacies
boy at chalkboard, puzzled at two math equations, 2+2=4 and 3+3=7
Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!
—Vizzini, The Princess Bride
So far we have looked at how to construct arguments and how to evaluate them. We've seen that arguments are constructed from sentences, with some sentences providing reasons, or premises, for another sentence, the conclusion. The purpose of arguments is to provide support for a conclusion. In a valid deductive argument, we must accept the conclusion as true if we accept the premises as true. A sound deductive argument is valid, and the premises are taken to be true. Inductive arguments, in contrast, are evaluated on a continuous scale from very strong to very weak: the stronger the inductive argument, the more likely the conclusion, given the premises.
What We Will Be Exploring
We will look at mistakes in reasoning, known as fallacies.
We will examine how these kinds of mistakes occur.
We will see that errors in reasoning can take place because of the structure of the argument.
We will discover that different errors in reasoning arise due to using language illegitimately, requiring close attention be paid to that language.
Generally, we want our arguments to be "good" arguments—sound deductive arguments and strong inductive arguments. Unfortunately, arguments often look good when they are not. Such arguments are said to commit a fallacy, a mistake in reasoning. Wide ranges of fallacies have been identified, but we will look at only some of the most common ones. When trying to construct a good argument, it is important to be able to identify what bad arguments look like. Then we can avoid making these mistakes ourselves and prevent others from trying to convince us of something on the basis of bad reasoning!
4.1
What Is a Fallacy?
image
The French village of Roussillon at sunrise. Roussillon is in Vaucluse, Provence. It would be a fallacy to assume that because someone lives in France, he or she lives in Paris.
Most simply, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. It is different from simply being mistaken, however. For instance, if someone were to say that "2 + 3 = 6," that would be a mistake, but it would not be a fallacy. Fallacies involve inferences, the move from one sentence (or a set of sentences) to another. Here's an example:
If I live in Paris, then I live in France.
I live in France.
Therefore,
I live in Paris.
Here, we have two premises and a conclusion. The first sentence is a conditional, and we can accept it as true. Let's assume the second sentence is also true. But even if those two premises were true, the conclusion would not be true. While it may be true that if I live in Paris then I live in France, and it may be true that I live in France, it does not follow that I live in Paris, because I could live in any number of other places in France. Thus, the inference from the .
Online LectureRationale Objectives1. To unders.docx
Online Lecture
Rationale
Objectives
1. To understand the purpose of Rationale in
mapping a simple argument.
2. To be able to apply the Golden Rule, the Rabbit
Rule and the Holding Hands Rule
3. To have a working knowledge of the structure of
a Rationale diagram
What is Rationale?
Rationale is a method of graphically representing
ethical dilemmas and working towards the
development of logical arguments. In particular it
assists people to:
• Engage in critical thinking
• Participate in discussions
• Formulate well reasoned arguments
• Writing clear and concise essays / reports
Graphical representation.
Rationale
The following slides will provide a brief introduction
to the Rationale software.
At the end of this lecture I will provide to you a link
to the Tutorials and also a summary document on
Rationale that I have generated
Components of an argument
Claim + Evidence + Reasoning = Proof
How a simple argument works …..
Premise 1Premise 1 Premise 2Premise 2
Conclusion /
Main claim
Conclusion /
Main claim
The co-premise supports
the claim
Collectively these two. or more,
supporting premises are
referred to as co-premises
The hierarchical nature of an argument
Claim/conclusionClaim/conclusion
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
Structured argument
Claim/conclusionClaim/conclusion
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
An objection refutes the
claim/conclusion by
providing contrary
evidence. This then
becomes a counter-claim
An objection refutes the
claim/conclusion by
providing contrary
evidence. This then
becomes a counter-claim
A supporting premise
provides evidence in
support of the
claim/conclusion
A supporting premise
provides evidence in
support of the
claim/conclusion
Claims and counter-
claims are argued in
exactly the same way
Claims and counter-
claims are argued in
exactly the same way
The main claim is expressed
as an ethical issue.
The main claim is expressed
as an ethical issue.
Simple argument
Computer
hacking
produces
positive results
Computer
hacking
produces
positive results
Positive
results are
good for the
community
Positive
results are
good for the
community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
communityComputer
hacking
produces
positive results
and is good for
the community
Computer
hacking
produces
positive results
and is good for
the community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
community
Note: Only one idea to
a premise
Do not include words such as
‘and’ or ‘because’ (joining words)
Simple argument
Computer hacking
is good for the
community
Computer.
The research project consists of an essay with the following topic.docx
The research project consists of an essay with the following topic:
Climate change’s impact on global economy: Which are the positions of developing and developed countries?
Essay template:
The essay template features a thin single column of text divided by clear section titles to increase readability and aesthetics.
The template contains the following parts:
1.- Abstract,
2.- Keywords
3.- Introduction
4.- The body
5.- Conclusion
6.- References.
!"
3
A G D
If ethics resembles design, and good design requires talking with each
other, it should not surprise us that ethics too involves talking. And while
our society o/en uses “moral” and “ethical” interchangeably, ethicists will
sometimes distinguish between them this way: morality has more to do
with what is right and wrong; ethics has more to do with those conversa-
tions in which we defend what is right and wrong.
Before we begin thinking about ethics as argument, there are a few
cautions to attend. First, I will generally follow the above distinction be-
tween morality and ethics. But this distinction is not hard and fast. If a
person is a whiz at constructing ethical arguments but lives like a schmuck,
such a person would be a double failure—both a failure at morality and
a failure at ethical argumentation. 0is is because, as it is commonly as-
sumed, solid ethical reasoning ought to be self-persuasive. If someone is
unconvinced by their own ethical argument and so lives like the devil, we
rightly assume that something is wrong—wrong with the individual and
quite possibly wrong with their arguments. Granted, our intuitions about
human nature obviously prevent us from taking this too far, that is, from
thinking that solid ethical argument will compel people to be good. A/er
all, we say, “We’re only human!” (We’ll see in a later chapter that our intu-
itions are correct on this point.) Yet we also intuitively reject the idea that
ethical argument has no connection whatsoever with how we live. So, as
important as it is to be clear about what makes for good ethical argument,
ethics-as-argument is only a small part of a much bigger story about how
to live well.
Second caution. Arguments—the kind that can be spoken or writ-
ten—are generally evaluated along three lines: completeness, soundness,
B! D"#$%&
!#
and validity. 0e test of completeness asks, “Have we forgotten any rele-
vant premises?” 0e criterion of soundness asks, “are all the premises true
or factual?” And the metric of validity inquires, “does the logical linkage
between premises work correctly?” Beginning students o/en think that
the most di1cult task is ferreting out the logical form of an argument
and discerning whether this linkage is valid or invalid. But in fact, a more
common way to go astray is failing to ask, “Have we forgotten any relevant
premise?” 0is is di1cult because getting it right depends on a combina-
tion of the sharpness of one’s moral eyes ...
How to make an argument
Prof. Rodas defines what makes an argument, goes through a step-by-step explanation of Eyal Press' argument in "Dirty Work," and presents an exercise for students in ENG 112 at Bronx Community College / CUNY.
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 ...
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docx
Chapter 9
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism. In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it. In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly critique an argument will also help you make your own arguments more effective.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them. Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn. So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises
The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise. Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The following is a list of questions that will help you not only methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument. In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5, inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some of their premises turn ...
Arguments part-2736
This document contains information about global warming and arguments related to climate change. It begins with a video link to "An Inconvenient Truth" and a link to the Climate Crisis website. It then provides several images from globalwarmingart.com showing projections and impacts of global warming, such as rising sea levels and shrinking sea ice. The document concludes with information on the greenhouse effect and a module on arguments, including the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning.
Question 1 When orienting your reading, which of the following q.docx
Question 1
When orienting your reading, which of the following questions would you NOT ask?
Is this reading that important to me?
What will I need to do with the material from the article?
What kind of reading does the material suggest?
How well do I need to know the material in the article?
Question 2
Which of the following is NOT a reading problem that you would need to master?
A noisy environment
Reading during a time of the day when you are least alert
Finding a topic that interests you
A dimly lit place
Question 3
Which of the following is NOT a question you would ask yourself when reading to critique?
Do the ideas appear reasonable?
Do the ideas connect in a logical way?
Does it match your experience?
Is it enjoyable to read?
Question 4
Which of the following statements about additional (second and third) readings of material is NOT TRUE?
You should read carefully and actively.
You should consider reading as a kind of conversation with the text.
You should attempt to master unfamiliar words.
You should skip over unfamiliar words.
Question 5
Upon the first reading of an essay, which of the following is NOT an effective technique?
Orienting yourself to the background of the essay
Using the title as a clue
Reading through carefully and thoroughly, making it your goal to understand all parts of the essay
Making connections with what you have read
Question 6
What are three steps you might take when writing a summary? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 7
What is inverted order in sentences, and what is one reason that you might avoid inverted order in your sentences? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 8
What are three elements that a professor might indicate in an assignment? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 9
What are three of the five questions listed in your textbook that you might ask of an essay that you read? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 10
What are the seven coordinating conjunctions? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 11
When reading to critique, what are the four aspects of an essay that you might dispute that are listed in your textbook? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 12
What are seven of the subordinating conjunctions? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 13
What are the three positions of movable modifiers? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 14
What is passive voice? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 15
According to Strategies for Writing Successful Res ...
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.
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.
Nyu Supplement Essay
NYU Personal Statement
NYU Application Essay
NYU Essay Examples
My Interest In NYU
NYU Promotes Diversity
Essay In Japanese
Benefits Of Studying In Japan
Japan and Japanese Culture Essay
Essay about Japan
Japanese, Japan, And Japan Essay
Japan Essay
Essay on Geography Of Japan
Eras Of Japan
Japanese Education Essay
Anzac Legend Essay
Significance Of The ANZAC Legend
Essay about Gallipoli
Essay about Anzac Sprit
The Anzac Legacy Of The Australian World War
Characteristics Of The Anzac Legend
ANZAC Legend Assignment
Anzac Legend Research Paper
Anzac Legend Analysis
The Legend Of The ANZAC Legend
The Anzac Legend: The Legend Of Gallipoli
The ANZAC Legend Essay
Explain The Key Features Of The Anzaac Legend
The Importance Of The ANZAC Legend
Anzac Legend Research Paper
ANZAC Legend Essay
The Anzac Legend : Anzacs, Courage, And Courage
Anzac Legend History
Anzac Legend Essay
More Related Content
Similar to Example Argument Essay
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Deductive Reasoning
moodboard/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Define basic key terms and concepts within deductive reasoning.
2. Use variables to represent an argument’s logical form.
3. Use the counterexample method to evaluate an argument’s validity.
4. Categorize different types of deductive arguments.
5. Analyze the various statements—and the relationships between them—in categorical arguments.
6. Evaluate categorical syllogisms using the rules of the syllogism and Venn diagrams.
7. Differentiate between sorites and enthymemes.
By now you should be familiar with how the field of logic views arguments: An argument is just a collection of sentences, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which, the premises, provide support for the conclusion. You have also learned that not every collection of sentences is an argument. Stories, explanations, questions, and debates are not arguments, for example. The essential feature of an argument is that the premises support, prove, or give evidence for the conclusion. This relationship of support is what makes a collection of sentences an argument and is the special concern of logic. For the next four chapters, we will be taking a closer look at the ways in which premises might support a conclusion. This chapter discusses deductive reasoning, with a specific focus on categorical logic.3.1 Basic Concepts in Deductive Reasoning
As noted in Chapter 2, at the broadest level there are two types of arguments: deductive and inductive. The difference between these types is largely a matter of the strength of the connection between premises and conclusion. Inductive arguments are defined and discussed in Chapter 5; this chapter focuses on deductive arguments. In this section we will learn about three central concepts: validity, soundness, and deduction.
Validity
Deductive arguments aim to achieve validity, which is an extremely strong connection between the premises and the conclusion. In logic, the word valid is only applied to arguments; therefore, when the concept of validity is discussed in this text, it is solely in reference to arguments, and not to claims, points, or positions. Those expressions may have other uses in other fields, but in logic, validity is a strict notion that has to do with the strength of the connection between an argument’s premises and conclusion.
To reiterate, an argument is a collection of sentences, one of which (the conclusion) is supposed to follow from the others (the premises). A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion; in other words, it is an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Notice that the definition of valid does not say anything about whether the premises are actually true, just whether the conclusion could be false if the premises were true. As an example, here is a silly but valid ar.
introduction to critical thinking.ppt
Critical thinking involves systematically evaluating beliefs and statements using rational standards. It examines life through examining one's beliefs, as Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. Critical thinking uses distinct procedures like identifying claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments to rationally assess existing beliefs and form new ones. Common impediments include self-interested, group, and subjective thinking. Deductive arguments aim to conclusively support conclusions while inductive arguments probably support conclusions. Fallacies involve irrelevant or unacceptable premises while various reasoning patterns help strengthen arguments.
Standard Form ArgumentsDiscussion TitleThe central tool of.docx
Standard Form Arguments
Discussion Title
The central tool of logic is the argument. Accordingly, constructing good arguments is the central element of this course. Each writing assignment in this course will give you an opportunity to construct and improve upon an argument that you will develop as the course progresses. This discussion post allows you to begin the process of developing your argument by presenting good reasoning on both sides of an issue.
The requirement for this discussion is a minimum of four posts on four separate days, including at least two substantive responses to peers. The total combined word count for all of your posts for this discussion, counted together, should be at least 400 words. Answer all the questions in the prompt, and read any resources that are required to complete the discussion properly. In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, complete your initial post by Day 3 (Thursday) and your other posts by Day 7 (Monday). We recommend that you get into the discussion early and spread out your posts over the course of the week. Reply to your classmates and instructor. Attempt to take the conversation further by responding substantively to the replies that others make to you as well. Keep the discussion on target, and analyze things in as much detail as you can.
Prepare: To prepare for this discussion, make sure to read the assigned chapters of the primary text and to review the required resources, including the videos about arguments (in the “Lectures” link on the left). Before responding to the prompt, make sure as well to participate in the interactive scenario at the top of this page titledThe Raise to gain more appreciation of the importance of constructing good arguments in life.
Reflect: Choose a topic from thePHI103 Final Paper Options list. It should be a topic that you find interesting, but also for which you will be able defend a position with careful logical reasoning. Construct the strongest argument that you can on each side of the issue. Strengthen your arguments by contemplating possible objections to each argument, and revise your arguments in light of the objections. Continue this process until you feel that your arguments for each side are as convincing as you can possibly make them.
Write: Present your two arguments (one on each side of the issue) in standard form (with each premise and conclusion on a separate line) on the topic you selected from thePHI103 Final Paper Options list. The two arguments should defend different positions on the topic. For example, if your topic was the existence of Santa Claus, then you would present one argument for the claim that Santa Claus does exist and another argument that Santa Claus does not exist. The premises of each argument will present reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true.
Here is an example of what an argument in standard form looks like:
Premise 1: If Santa Claus exists, then he lives at the North Pole.
Prem.
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
207
6Deduction and Induction:
Putting It All Together
Wavebreakmedia Ltd./Thinkstock and GoldenShrimp/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Compare and contrast the advantages of deduction and induction.
2. Explain why one might choose an inductive argument over a deductive argument.
3. Analyze an argument for its deductive and inductive components.
4. Explain the use of induction within the hypothetico–deductive method.
5. Compare and contrast falsification and confirmation within scientific inquiry.
6. Describe the combined use of induction and deduction within scientific reasoning.
7. Explain the role of inference to the best explanation in science and in daily life.
har85668_06_c06_207-238.indd 207 4/9/15 11:38 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Now that you have learned something about deduction and induction, you may be wondering
why we need both. This chapter is devoted to answering that question. We will start by learn-
ing a bit more about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and how the
two types of reasoning can work together. After that, we will move on to explore how scien-
tific reasoning applies to both types of reasoning to achieve spectacular results. Arguments
with both inductive and deductive elements are very common. Recognizing the advantages
and disadvantages of each type can help you build better arguments. We will also investigate
another very useful type of inference, known as inference to the best explanation, and explore
its advantages.
6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Remember that in logic, the difference between induction and deduction lies in the connec-
tion between the premises and conclusion. Deductive arguments aim for an absolute connec-
tion, one in which it is impossible that the premises could all be true and the conclusion false.
Arguments that achieve this aim are called valid. Inductive arguments aim for a probable
connection, one in which, if all the premises are true, the conclusion is more likely to be true
than it would be otherwise. Arguments that achieve this aim are called strong. (For a discus-
sion on common misconceptions about the meanings of induction and deduction, see A Closer
Look: Doesn’t Induction Mean Going From Specific to General?). Recall from Chapter 5 that
inductive strength is the counterpart of deductive validity, and cogency is the inductive coun-
terpart of deductive soundness. One of the purposes of this chapter is to properly understand
the differences and connections between these two major types of reasoning.
There is another important difference
between deductive and inductive rea-
soning. As discussed in Chapter 5, if
you add another premise to an induc-
tive argument, the argument may
become either stronger or weaker. For
example, suppose you ar.
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
207
6Deduction and Induction:
Putting It All Together
Wavebreakmedia Ltd./Thinkstock and GoldenShrimp/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Compare and contrast the advantages of deduction and induction.
2. Explain why one might choose an inductive argument over a deductive argument.
3. Analyze an argument for its deductive and inductive components.
4. Explain the use of induction within the hypothetico–deductive method.
5. Compare and contrast falsification and confirmation within scientific inquiry.
6. Describe the combined use of induction and deduction within scientific reasoning.
7. Explain the role of inference to the best explanation in science and in daily life.
har85668_06_c06_207-238.indd 207 4/9/15 11:38 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Now that you have learned something about deduction and induction, you may be wondering
why we need both. This chapter is devoted to answering that question. We will start by learn-
ing a bit more about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and how the
two types of reasoning can work together. After that, we will move on to explore how scien-
tific reasoning applies to both types of reasoning to achieve spectacular results. Arguments
with both inductive and deductive elements are very common. Recognizing the advantages
and disadvantages of each type can help you build better arguments. We will also investigate
another very useful type of inference, known as inference to the best explanation, and explore
its advantages.
6.1 Contrasting Deduction and Induction
Remember that in logic, the difference between induction and deduction lies in the connec-
tion between the premises and conclusion. Deductive arguments aim for an absolute connec-
tion, one in which it is impossible that the premises could all be true and the conclusion false.
Arguments that achieve this aim are called valid. Inductive arguments aim for a probable
connection, one in which, if all the premises are true, the conclusion is more likely to be true
than it would be otherwise. Arguments that achieve this aim are called strong. (For a discus-
sion on common misconceptions about the meanings of induction and deduction, see A Closer
Look: Doesn’t Induction Mean Going From Specific to General?). Recall from Chapter 5 that
inductive strength is the counterpart of deductive validity, and cogency is the inductive coun-
terpart of deductive soundness. One of the purposes of this chapter is to properly understand
the differences and connections between these two major types of reasoning.
There is another important difference
between deductive and inductive rea-
soning. As discussed in Chapter 5, if
you add another premise to an induc-
tive argument, the argument may
become either stronger or weaker. For
example, suppose you ar ...
The Moral Good in Three TraditionalEthical Theories© Glori.docx
The Moral Good
in Three Traditional
Ethical Theories
© Gloria Zúñiga y Postigo
The words “ethics” and “morality” are often used interchangeably. But these actually mean different things. One cannot speak of what is “ethical” until one is clear about what one means by “moral.” In other words, the meaning of the word “ethical” is dependent on the meaning of the word “moral.” So one must start by defining what is “moral.” But when we start looking into this, we find that there are different ways in which this words “moral” or “morality” are understood. This is when we first realize that addressing ethics and morality is much more complicated that what we had initially thought. So let’s proceed methodically.
The relation between ethics and morality is as follows:
Introduction
Ethics = the application of moral principles in ordinary life
(e.g., rules for action, codes of ethics in business)
Morality = all that involves the right and wrong
Now, let’s examine what is morality by asking this question: How do we know what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do? The answer is this that the right thing to do targets the good, and the wrong thing to do is anything that targets evil. These relations can be seen more clearly in this way:
The right thing to do the good
The wrong thing to do evil
Summation
Putting it all together, we have this:
Ethics
Morality
Doing what is right
The Moral Good
practical life
moral reasoning
The main point to remember is that in order to examine ethics, we must first examine morality. And in order to examine morality, one must understand what is meant by the moral good.
In the next few slides, you will see how three different ethical theories define what is the moral good. This will help you decide which understanding of morality to accept and, in turn, also know how to be ethical in practical life.
Warning: Make sure to employ the term “duty” in deontology only in the sense indicated on the slide. Avoid employing “duty” in the ordinary sense, which means to do what one is assigned to do or what is suitable to one’s role.
The Moral Good
John Stuart Mill
Mill’s UtilitarianismMoral GoodPLEASURE
(the kind of happiness that can be obtained from physical or noble satisfactions) How to Achieve ItBy acting in ways that bring about the following consequences:
Increase pleasure or reduce pain
Results that apply not only to self
but also as many as possible
Those that result from any means
that made them possiblePurposeTo maximize pleasure, or to reduce suffering
Immanuel Kant
Kant’s DeontologyMoral Good DUTY
(understood as that which is governed by the Categorical Imperative)How to
Achieve ItBy applying the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
.
Mistakes in Reasoning
This document discusses different types of inductive arguments and fallacies in reasoning. It provides examples and analysis of several common fallacies, including hasty generalization, weak analogy, accident, post hoc, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem, and question begging. The key points are that memorizing fallacies is less useful than understanding the criteria to evaluate different types of arguments, and that some supposed fallacies are better understood as factual errors or criticisms rather than logical flaws.
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.
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning: The World of Fallacies
boy at chalkboard, puzzled at two math equations, 2+2=4 and 3+3=7
Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!
—Vizzini, The Princess Bride
So far we have looked at how to construct arguments and how to evaluate them. We've seen that arguments are constructed from sentences, with some sentences providing reasons, or premises, for another sentence, the conclusion. The purpose of arguments is to provide support for a conclusion. In a valid deductive argument, we must accept the conclusion as true if we accept the premises as true. A sound deductive argument is valid, and the premises are taken to be true. Inductive arguments, in contrast, are evaluated on a continuous scale from very strong to very weak: the stronger the inductive argument, the more likely the conclusion, given the premises.
What We Will Be Exploring
We will look at mistakes in reasoning, known as fallacies.
We will examine how these kinds of mistakes occur.
We will see that errors in reasoning can take place because of the structure of the argument.
We will discover that different errors in reasoning arise due to using language illegitimately, requiring close attention be paid to that language.
Generally, we want our arguments to be "good" arguments—sound deductive arguments and strong inductive arguments. Unfortunately, arguments often look good when they are not. Such arguments are said to commit a fallacy, a mistake in reasoning. Wide ranges of fallacies have been identified, but we will look at only some of the most common ones. When trying to construct a good argument, it is important to be able to identify what bad arguments look like. Then we can avoid making these mistakes ourselves and prevent others from trying to convince us of something on the basis of bad reasoning!
4.1
What Is a Fallacy?
image
The French village of Roussillon at sunrise. Roussillon is in Vaucluse, Provence. It would be a fallacy to assume that because someone lives in France, he or she lives in Paris.
Most simply, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. It is different from simply being mistaken, however. For instance, if someone were to say that "2 + 3 = 6," that would be a mistake, but it would not be a fallacy. Fallacies involve inferences, the move from one sentence (or a set of sentences) to another. Here's an example:
If I live in Paris, then I live in France.
I live in France.
Therefore,
I live in Paris.
Here, we have two premises and a conclusion. The first sentence is a conditional, and we can accept it as true. Let's assume the second sentence is also true. But even if those two premises were true, the conclusion would not be true. While it may be true that if I live in Paris then I live in France, and it may be true that I live in France, it does not follow that I live in Paris, because I could live in any number of other places in France. Thus, the inference from the .
Online LectureRationale Objectives1. To unders.docx
Online Lecture
Rationale
Objectives
1. To understand the purpose of Rationale in
mapping a simple argument.
2. To be able to apply the Golden Rule, the Rabbit
Rule and the Holding Hands Rule
3. To have a working knowledge of the structure of
a Rationale diagram
What is Rationale?
Rationale is a method of graphically representing
ethical dilemmas and working towards the
development of logical arguments. In particular it
assists people to:
• Engage in critical thinking
• Participate in discussions
• Formulate well reasoned arguments
• Writing clear and concise essays / reports
Graphical representation.
Rationale
The following slides will provide a brief introduction
to the Rationale software.
At the end of this lecture I will provide to you a link
to the Tutorials and also a summary document on
Rationale that I have generated
Components of an argument
Claim + Evidence + Reasoning = Proof
How a simple argument works …..
Premise 1Premise 1 Premise 2Premise 2
Conclusion /
Main claim
Conclusion /
Main claim
The co-premise supports
the claim
Collectively these two. or more,
supporting premises are
referred to as co-premises
The hierarchical nature of an argument
Claim/conclusionClaim/conclusion
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
Structured argument
Claim/conclusionClaim/conclusion
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
SupportSupport ObjectionObjection
An objection refutes the
claim/conclusion by
providing contrary
evidence. This then
becomes a counter-claim
An objection refutes the
claim/conclusion by
providing contrary
evidence. This then
becomes a counter-claim
A supporting premise
provides evidence in
support of the
claim/conclusion
A supporting premise
provides evidence in
support of the
claim/conclusion
Claims and counter-
claims are argued in
exactly the same way
Claims and counter-
claims are argued in
exactly the same way
The main claim is expressed
as an ethical issue.
The main claim is expressed
as an ethical issue.
Simple argument
Computer
hacking
produces
positive results
Computer
hacking
produces
positive results
Positive
results are
good for the
community
Positive
results are
good for the
community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
communityComputer
hacking
produces
positive results
and is good for
the community
Computer
hacking
produces
positive results
and is good for
the community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
community
Computer
hacking is
good for the
community
Note: Only one idea to
a premise
Do not include words such as
‘and’ or ‘because’ (joining words)
Simple argument
Computer hacking
is good for the
community
Computer.
The research project consists of an essay with the following topic.docx
The research project consists of an essay with the following topic:
Climate change’s impact on global economy: Which are the positions of developing and developed countries?
Essay template:
The essay template features a thin single column of text divided by clear section titles to increase readability and aesthetics.
The template contains the following parts:
1.- Abstract,
2.- Keywords
3.- Introduction
4.- The body
5.- Conclusion
6.- References.
!"
3
A G D
If ethics resembles design, and good design requires talking with each
other, it should not surprise us that ethics too involves talking. And while
our society o/en uses “moral” and “ethical” interchangeably, ethicists will
sometimes distinguish between them this way: morality has more to do
with what is right and wrong; ethics has more to do with those conversa-
tions in which we defend what is right and wrong.
Before we begin thinking about ethics as argument, there are a few
cautions to attend. First, I will generally follow the above distinction be-
tween morality and ethics. But this distinction is not hard and fast. If a
person is a whiz at constructing ethical arguments but lives like a schmuck,
such a person would be a double failure—both a failure at morality and
a failure at ethical argumentation. 0is is because, as it is commonly as-
sumed, solid ethical reasoning ought to be self-persuasive. If someone is
unconvinced by their own ethical argument and so lives like the devil, we
rightly assume that something is wrong—wrong with the individual and
quite possibly wrong with their arguments. Granted, our intuitions about
human nature obviously prevent us from taking this too far, that is, from
thinking that solid ethical argument will compel people to be good. A/er
all, we say, “We’re only human!” (We’ll see in a later chapter that our intu-
itions are correct on this point.) Yet we also intuitively reject the idea that
ethical argument has no connection whatsoever with how we live. So, as
important as it is to be clear about what makes for good ethical argument,
ethics-as-argument is only a small part of a much bigger story about how
to live well.
Second caution. Arguments—the kind that can be spoken or writ-
ten—are generally evaluated along three lines: completeness, soundness,
B! D"#$%&
!#
and validity. 0e test of completeness asks, “Have we forgotten any rele-
vant premises?” 0e criterion of soundness asks, “are all the premises true
or factual?” And the metric of validity inquires, “does the logical linkage
between premises work correctly?” Beginning students o/en think that
the most di1cult task is ferreting out the logical form of an argument
and discerning whether this linkage is valid or invalid. But in fact, a more
common way to go astray is failing to ask, “Have we forgotten any relevant
premise?” 0is is di1cult because getting it right depends on a combina-
tion of the sharpness of one’s moral eyes ...
How to make an argument
Prof. Rodas defines what makes an argument, goes through a step-by-step explanation of Eyal Press' argument in "Dirty Work," and presents an exercise for students in ENG 112 at Bronx Community College / CUNY.
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 ...
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docx
Chapter 9
Practicing Effective Criticism
The principles of charity and accuracy govern the interpretation of arguments—they help you decide what the argument actually is. But once you have figured out what the argument is, you will want to evaluate it. In general, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments or other works is known as criticism. In everyday language, criticism is often assumed to be negative—to criticize something is to say what is wrong with it. In the case of argumentation, however, criticism means to provide a more general analysis and evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. This section will focus on what constitutes good criticism and how you can criticize in a productive manner. Understanding how to properly critique an argument will also help you make your own arguments more effective.
When criticizing arguments, it is important to note both the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Very few arguments are so bad that they have nothing at all to recommend them. Likewise, very few arguments are so perfect that they cannot be improved. Focusing only on an argument’s weaknesses or only on its strengths can make you seem biased. By noting both, you will not only be seen as less biased, you will also gain a better appreciation of the true state of the argument.
As we have seen, logical arguments are composed of premises and conclusions and the relation of inference between these. If an argument fails to establish its conclusion, then the problem might lie with one of the premises or with the inference drawn. So objections to arguments are mostly objections to premises or to inferences. A handy way of remembering this comes by way of the philosophical lore that all objections reduce to either “Oh yeah?” or “So what?” (Sturgeon, 1986).
Oh Yeah? Criticizing Premises
The “Oh yeah?” objection is made against a premise. A response of “Oh yeah?” means that the responder disagrees with what has been said, so it is an objection that a premise is either false or insufficiently supported.
Of course, if you are going to object to a premise, you really need to do more than just say, “Oh yeah?” At the very least, you should be prepared to say why you disagree with the premise. Whoever presented the argument has put the premise forward as true, and if all you can do is simply gainsay the person, then the discussion is not going to progress much. You need to support your objection with reasons for doubting the premise. The following is a list of questions that will help you not only methodically criticize arguments but also appreciate why your arguments receive negative criticism.
Is it central to the argument? The first thing to consider in questioning a premise is whether it is central to the argument. In other words, you should ask, “What would happen to the argument if the premise were wrong?” As noted in Chapter 5, inductive arguments can often remain fairly strong even if some of their premises turn ...
Arguments part-2736
This document contains information about global warming and arguments related to climate change. It begins with a video link to "An Inconvenient Truth" and a link to the Climate Crisis website. It then provides several images from globalwarmingart.com showing projections and impacts of global warming, such as rising sea levels and shrinking sea ice. The document concludes with information on the greenhouse effect and a module on arguments, including the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning.
Question 1 When orienting your reading, which of the following q.docx
Question 1
When orienting your reading, which of the following questions would you NOT ask?
Is this reading that important to me?
What will I need to do with the material from the article?
What kind of reading does the material suggest?
How well do I need to know the material in the article?
Question 2
Which of the following is NOT a reading problem that you would need to master?
A noisy environment
Reading during a time of the day when you are least alert
Finding a topic that interests you
A dimly lit place
Question 3
Which of the following is NOT a question you would ask yourself when reading to critique?
Do the ideas appear reasonable?
Do the ideas connect in a logical way?
Does it match your experience?
Is it enjoyable to read?
Question 4
Which of the following statements about additional (second and third) readings of material is NOT TRUE?
You should read carefully and actively.
You should consider reading as a kind of conversation with the text.
You should attempt to master unfamiliar words.
You should skip over unfamiliar words.
Question 5
Upon the first reading of an essay, which of the following is NOT an effective technique?
Orienting yourself to the background of the essay
Using the title as a clue
Reading through carefully and thoroughly, making it your goal to understand all parts of the essay
Making connections with what you have read
Question 6
What are three steps you might take when writing a summary? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 7
What is inverted order in sentences, and what is one reason that you might avoid inverted order in your sentences? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 8
What are three elements that a professor might indicate in an assignment? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 9
What are three of the five questions listed in your textbook that you might ask of an essay that you read? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 10
What are the seven coordinating conjunctions? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 11
When reading to critique, what are the four aspects of an essay that you might dispute that are listed in your textbook? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 12
What are seven of the subordinating conjunctions? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 13
What are the three positions of movable modifiers? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 14
What is passive voice? Your response to this short answer question should be brief, concise, and specific.
Question 15
According to Strategies for Writing Successful Res ...
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.
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 Example Argument Essay (19)
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Deductive ReasoningmoodboardThinkstockLearning Objectives.docx
Standard Form ArgumentsDiscussion TitleThe central tool of.docx
Standard Form ArgumentsDiscussion TitleThe central tool of.docx
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
2076Deduction and Induction Putting It All Together.docx
The Moral Good in Three TraditionalEthical Theories© Glori.docx
The Moral Good in Three TraditionalEthical Theories© Glori.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docx
Online LectureRationale Objectives1. To unders.docx
Online LectureRationale Objectives1. To unders.docx
The research project consists of an essay with the following topic.docx
The research project consists of an essay with the following topic.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
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docx
Chapter 9Practicing Effective CriticismThe principles of cha.docx
Question 1 When orienting your reading, which of the following q.docx
Question 1 When orienting your reading, which of the following q.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 Paper Writing Services Reviews
Nyu Supplement Essay
NYU Personal Statement
NYU Application Essay
NYU Essay Examples
My Interest In NYU
NYU Promotes Diversity
Essay In Japanese
Benefits Of Studying In Japan
Japan and Japanese Culture Essay
Essay about Japan
Japanese, Japan, And Japan Essay
Japan Essay
Essay on Geography Of Japan
Eras Of Japan
Japanese Education Essay
Anzac Legend Essay
Significance Of The ANZAC Legend
Essay about Gallipoli
Essay about Anzac Sprit
The Anzac Legacy Of The Australian World War
Characteristics Of The Anzac Legend
ANZAC Legend Assignment
Anzac Legend Research Paper
Anzac Legend Analysis
The Legend Of The ANZAC Legend
The Anzac Legend: The Legend Of Gallipoli
The ANZAC Legend Essay
Explain The Key Features Of The Anzaac Legend
The Importance Of The ANZAC Legend
Anzac Legend Research Paper
ANZAC Legend Essay
The Anzac Legend : Anzacs, Courage, And Courage
Anzac Legend History
Anzac Legend Essay
The Lottery Essay
Essay about The Lottery
Evidence For The Lottery
The Lottery Essay
The Lottery Reflection
The Lottery Theme Essay
Thesis For The Lottery
Roman Fever Essay
Roman Fever Quotes
Essay on Roman Fever
Essay On Roman Fever
Roman Fever Analysis
Roman Fever Essay
Roman Fever Symbolism
Roman Fever Essay
Roman Fever Analysis
Charlemagne Essay
Charlemagne Essay
Charlemagne Essay
Charlemagne Essay
Charlemagne Essay examples
Essay on Charlemagne
Charlemagne Essay
Captains Of Industry Essay
The document discusses the captains of industry, also known as robber barons, during the 19th century in the United States. While some of their business practices harmed others, these businessmen ultimately helped modernize the country through innovations like applying steel production to skyscrapers and railroads, bringing costs down and accessibility up. Figures like Andrew Carnegie helped transform the U.S. into an industrial power through expanding markets and increasing productivity, though workers often faced difficult conditions and low pay.
Essays On American Revolution
The Revolutionary War started in 1775 and ended in 1783 with America's independence from Britain. During the war, the Second Continental Congress organized an army to fight the British while taking on the role of a new national government. After winning independence, the new nation focused on building its government and expanding westward, while also dealing with foreign affairs issues involving France, Britain, and Mexico. The essay then transitions to discussing the American Civil War, including its causes, key battles, use of trench warfare, and the impact it had on the United States.
Beautiful Essay
The document discusses the definition of art and argues that makeup artistry is a form of art. It states that art is defined by beauty and the pleasure it brings, manifesting beauty. While makeup artists are often not recognized as serious artists, the document asserts that applying makeup takes the same skills and procedures as other art forms, such as understanding color and using different tools. It claims that being a makeup artist requires skills, education, and practice, not just owning makeup products, making it a legitimate art form that allows self-expression.
Essay Writing On Technology
This document discusses the author's experience writing without technology. The author realized that even a pencil is a form of technology. For the assignment, the author tried making a base out of sticks and vines but struggled. The author then had the idea to use berry juice as ink and wrote on a piece of bark, finding this to be a simpler solution. The experience highlighted how much modern technologies like computers, pens and paper have been interiorized, and how difficult writing was before these innovations.
Cloud Computing Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
What Are Cloud Computing? Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
Project Questions On Cloud Computing Essay
The Cloud Of Cloud Computing Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
Essay on Cloud Computing
Cloud Computing Essay
Essay about Cloud Computing
Cloud Computing Essay
Cloud Computing Essays
Cloud Computing In Business Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
Cloud Computing: Pros and Cons Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
Cloud Computing: A Summary Analysis
Cloud Computing Persuasive Essay
Cloud Computing Essay
What´s Cloud Computing? Essay
Outline Of A Descriptive Essay
Descriptive Essay On A Portrait
Descriptive Essay
Descriptive Research
Outline For Disease Essay
Descriptive Essay On Farm
Descriptive Essay On Fire
Racism And Discrimination Essay
Racism and discrimination have existed throughout history in many forms. Racism refers to unjust treatment or beliefs about a race, while discrimination more broadly refers to unfair treatment of people based on categories like race, age, or sexuality. Examples of systemic racism and discrimination in the US include slavery of African Americans, segregation policies before the Civil Rights Act, and ongoing social and economic inequities faced by minorities. While laws now prohibit discrimination, completely eradicating biases may be difficult due to how they have been passed down through generations and are embedded within society and human nature.
Essay Thesis Statement Examples
This document provides an example thesis statement and instructions for students to practice creating their own thesis statements. It asks students to take given topics and turn them into thesis statements expressing their own opinion on the topic along with 2-3 supporting reasons. The example thesis argues that controlling the pet population through spaying and neutering is important because it helps prevent unwanted animals, improves pet health, and reduces animal behavior issues. Students are then asked to take the topic "Changing high schools" and develop their own thesis statement expressing their view and reasons.
Grad School Application Essay Examples
This document summarizes the author's experience growing up in Chandigarh, India and how it has shaped their perspective and career goals. It discusses how the author has observed both the modernist planning of Chandigarh as well as traditional and informal urbanism in other parts of India. Through various class projects, the author has investigated how different groups perceive and use the city as well as issues like informal vending. The author's thesis explored the urbanized villages around Chandigarh that emerged from the city's planning and how they critique the original neighborhood models.
Juno Essay
Juno discusses how the film Juno portrays the emotional challenges of teen pregnancy in a lighter way than real life. While the film accurately captures some aspects, like Juno feeling stared at, it does not fully capture the shame and embarrassment most young women feel. When Juno visits an abortion clinic, the film realistically depicts its impersonal nature, but Juno's boyfriend is unrealistic in how nonchalant he is about potentially becoming a father. The film tries to portray teen pregnancy challenges but ultimately takes a lighter approach.
List Of Exploratory Essay Topics
Self Exploration
Ocean Pollution Essay
Security and Privacy Essay
CTE Essay
Love: an Exploratory Paper
Exploratory Essay: Abortion
Personal Worldview Essay
Essay Personal Worldview
Personal Worldview Essay
Personal Worldview Essay
My Personal Worldview Paper
My Personal Worldview
Personal Worldview Essay
Personal Worldview Essay
Personal Worldview
Personal Worldviews
Essay On Beethoven
Essay on Ludwig Van Beethoven
Ludwig Van Beethoven Essay
Essay on Beethoven
Beethoven Essay
Essay on Beethoven
Beethoven Essay
Beethoven Essay
Ludwig van Beethoven Essay
Beethoven Research Paper
Ludwig Van Beethoven Essay
Essay On Dementia
Essay on Dementia in Older Adults
Narrative Essay On Dementia
Essay On Dementia
Essay on Dementia in Elder Adults
Dementia Essay
Dementia Essay
Essay On Dementia
Dementia Reflective Essay
Reflective Essay On Dementia
More from Paper Writing Services Reviews (20)
Recently uploaded
Top five deadliest dog breeds in America
Thinking of getting a dog? Be aware that breeds like Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds can be loyal and dangerous. Proper training and socialization are crucial to preventing aggressive behaviors. Ensure safety by understanding their needs and always supervising interactions. Stay safe, and enjoy your furry friends!
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
https://app.box.com/s/y977uz6bpd3af4qsebv7r9b7s21935vdAdvanced Java[Extra Concepts, Not Difficult].docx
This is part 2 of my Java Learning Journey. This contains Hashing, ArrayList, LinkedList, Date and Time Classes, Calendar Class and more.
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
DRUGS AND ITS classification slide share
Any substance (other than food) that is used to prevent, diagnose, treat, or relieve symptoms of a
disease or abnormal condition
PCOS corelations and management through Ayurveda.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
Types of Herbal Cosmetics its standardization.
Physiology and chemistry of skin and pigmentation, hairs, scalp, lips and nail, Cleansing cream, Lotions, Face powders, Face packs, Lipsticks, Bath products, soaps and baby product,
Preparation and standardization of the following : Tonic, Bleaches, Dentifrices and Mouth washes & Tooth Pastes, Cosmetics for Nails.
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptxMohd Adib Abd Muin, Senior Lecturer at Universiti Utara Malaysia
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
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.
Recently uploaded (20)
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRM
Liberal Approach to the Study of Indian Politics.pdf
Liberal Approach to the Study of Indian Politics.pdf
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold Method
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
Pollock and Snow "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape, Session One: Setting Expec...
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
Film vocab for eal 3 students: Australia the movie
Film vocab for eal 3 students: Australia the movie
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Chapter 4 - Islamic Financial Institutions in Malaysia.pptx
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Example Argument Essay
- 1. Example Of An Argument ii) What is an argument? Elaborate with examples. In everyday life, people use argument to connote a squabble between people. But in critical thinking and logic, an argument is a list of statements, which consist of two or more premises or assumptions and a conclusion of the argument. To accord an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for giving credence to the conclusion and not necessarily to attack or criticise someone. Arguments can also be a tool to underpin other people's opinions. Here is an example of an argument: If you want to find a good job, you should study smart You do want a good job So, you should study smart. The first two sentences are the premises of the argument and the final sentence is the conclusion. To ...show more content... Therefore, the patient does not have malaria. Referring back to the criteria that has to be fulfilling to produce a valid argument, the given example obeys the criteria with a true premise which leads to a true conclusion. This is how a valid argument is identified. For valid arguments, the addition of extra premises will not change the conclusion. A valid conclusion is deduced from a set of premises can never be changed by the addition of new premises. b)Invalid arguments If an argument is invalid, then it is possible for a false conclusion even though all the premises are true. It is logically possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Here is an example of an invalid argument: All actors are robots Johny Dep is a robot. Therefore, Johny Dep is an actor. Now, if these premises are true, it does not follow that Johny Dep is an actor. It would follow if we mention that only actors are robots in the premises, but it does not say that. We can assume that anyone in the acting ccupation is a robot, but robots might be doing different jobs besides acting. So, the fact that Johny Dep is a robot does not guarantee that he is also an Get more content on HelpWriting.net