This document discusses the concepts of logic, reasons for belief, and argument structure. It defines valid and sound arguments, and provides examples to illustrate identifying premises and conclusions, and determining if arguments are valid or sound. The key aspects covered are: the difference between valid and sound arguments; identifying premises and conclusions; and a process for analyzing arguments by checking for validity and truth of premises.
This is presentation on different local books that can be used in English lessons. Communication is a two-way process, and we learn about many other cultures through English. International GG Books intends to share local culture in the global village. We can use Englisht to let English-speaking people learn about our culture.
PHIL 105-010January 26th, 2016Informal Fallacies.docxrandymartin91030
PHIL 105-010
January 26th, 2016
Informal Fallacies
Please Note
The examples of fallacies are given in italics.
The explanations are in plain text.
You are welcome to go online to look for more examples.
You will be tested on these fallacies.
There is a practice quiz at the end.
Informal Fallacies
Informal Fallacies are errors in informal or casual reasoning.
They are often committed in casual conversation.
But you can also find them in the media.
People are often unaware that they are committing an informal fallacy.
Committing an informal fallacy often reveals what our reality and value assumptions are.
#1 Fallacy of Composition
When the attribute of an individual or part of something is attributed to the whole or group.
The cells in my body are round; therefore my body is round.
False. The attribute of a cell (roundness) cannot be attributed to what those cells make up, i.e., the body.
The cup holder in my car is made of plastic; therefore, my car is made of plastic.
#2 Fallacy of Division
The opposite of the fallacy of composition.
The idea that an attribute of the whole can be applied to the individual parts of that whole.
Drexel is an old university; therefore, all the professors are old.
False. The attribute of the whole (Drexel is old) cannot be applied to what makes up Drexel (for example, the professors).
The earth is round; therefore, all earthlings are round.
#3 Circular Reasoning
When the conclusion you arrive at is actually already present in your premises (the ideas you believe support your conclusion).
It appears as if you are repeating yourself.
There’s only survival of the fittest because only the fittest survive.
What the Bible says is true because the Bible is true (or because the Bible says so).
#4 Loaded Question
When you ask someone a question to which there is no good answer and the other person cannot extricate themselves
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If you says yes, you are still beating your wife.
If you say no, it means you admit to once beating your wife.
There is no way to win.
Are you stoned or stupid?
These are usually rhetorical questions.
#5 Naturalistic Fallacy
That because something is the case in nature it ought to be the case, usually among humans.
This is taking a reality assumption and converting it into a value assumption.
Swans are monogamous; therefore, humans should be monogamous.
Bonobos are promiscuous; therefore, humans should be promiscuous.
Fish swim; therefore, humans should swim.
#6 cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Also known as “correlation = causation”
However, correlation does not equal causation
Children who wear big shoes also have good handwriting. Therefore, wearing big shoes causes good handwriting.
No, wearing big shoes does NOT cause good handwriting. These things are merely correlated.
This is how superstitions can start.
Because I wore those red socks, I hit the home run. Those are my lucky red socks.
#7 Fallacy of Accident.
The Abortion Debate The Person Argument § The Person.docxtodd801
The Abortion Debate
The Person Argument
§ The Person Argument – The traditional argument against
abortion:
§ 1. The fetus is an innocent person
§ 2. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent person
§ 3. So: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus
§ The argument is valid. It remains to see whether or not it is
sound, that is to say, we have to assess whether or not the two
premises are true. So, the questions are:
§ 1. Is the fetus a person?
§ 2. Is it always morally wrong to kill an innocent person? – This is
where the mother’s “right over her own body” will come into play
The Person Argument
§ Premise 1: The Question of Personhood
§ The notion of Personhood is crucial for the argument: It is
because the fetus is considered a person that it is considered
morally wrong to kill it.
§ Thought experiment: what would be ok to kill?
§ - an ant in your yard? a spider in your house?
§ - robots? – I, Robot example, neuroscience movie
§ SO: we need to figure out what it is that makes a person a
person. More precisely, what we need is a sufficient condition for
being a person.
The Person Argument
§ In the case of abortion, we need
§ - EITHER a sufficient condition, or a set of conditions that are
together sufficient to be a person. If the fetus fulfill these
conditions, then the fetus is a person, and then the first premise
is true.
§ - OR a necessary condition to be a person that the fetus does not
fulfill. In this case, the fetus is not a person and the Person
Argument fails
The Person Argument
§ Examples:
§ - Necessary but not sufficient: a necessary condition to get an A at
the exam is to take the exam
§ - Necessary but not sufficient: a necessary condition for being a
human is to be an animal
§ - Sufficient but not necessary: a sufficient condition for being an
animal is to be a human
§ - Sufficient but not necessary: a sufficient condition for putting on
weight is to be pregnant.
§ Notice that a set of necessary conditions can together constitute a
sufficient condition.
§ Example: fuel, heat and oxygen are necessary and together
sufficient conditions to get a fire. None of them is sufficient
individually
The Person Argument
§ Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Personhood – What
would that be?
§ Mary Anne Warren’s thought experiment: Aliens and Personhood
§ Human parents, human DNA, physical resemblance? – not
necessary
§ Viability – may be necessary, but not sufficient!
§ Soul? How do we check on this?
The Person Argument
§ Mary Anne Warren’s conditions for personhood – She proposes
the following list:
§ 1. The capacity of consciousness and the ability to feel pain
§ 2. The ability to reason.
§ 3. The ability to act in ways that go beyond instinct – to have
motives and goals.
§ 4. The capacity for complex communication.
§ 5. Having a sense of self.
The Person Argument
§ According the Warren, the fetus does not fulfill all thes.
Judith Jarvis Thomson A Defense of AbortionFrom Philosophy & karenahmanny4c
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
From Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971).
(Reprinted in "Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics," 5th ed., ed. Ronald Munson (Belmont; Wadsworth 1996). pp 69-80.)
Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.
I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that ...
Judith Jarvis Thomson A Defense of AbortionFrom Philosophy & .docxcroysierkathey
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
From Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971).
(Reprinted in "Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics," 5th ed., ed. Ronald Munson (Belmont; Wadsworth 1996). pp 69-80.)
Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.
I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that ...
This is presentation on different local books that can be used in English lessons. Communication is a two-way process, and we learn about many other cultures through English. International GG Books intends to share local culture in the global village. We can use Englisht to let English-speaking people learn about our culture.
PHIL 105-010January 26th, 2016Informal Fallacies.docxrandymartin91030
PHIL 105-010
January 26th, 2016
Informal Fallacies
Please Note
The examples of fallacies are given in italics.
The explanations are in plain text.
You are welcome to go online to look for more examples.
You will be tested on these fallacies.
There is a practice quiz at the end.
Informal Fallacies
Informal Fallacies are errors in informal or casual reasoning.
They are often committed in casual conversation.
But you can also find them in the media.
People are often unaware that they are committing an informal fallacy.
Committing an informal fallacy often reveals what our reality and value assumptions are.
#1 Fallacy of Composition
When the attribute of an individual or part of something is attributed to the whole or group.
The cells in my body are round; therefore my body is round.
False. The attribute of a cell (roundness) cannot be attributed to what those cells make up, i.e., the body.
The cup holder in my car is made of plastic; therefore, my car is made of plastic.
#2 Fallacy of Division
The opposite of the fallacy of composition.
The idea that an attribute of the whole can be applied to the individual parts of that whole.
Drexel is an old university; therefore, all the professors are old.
False. The attribute of the whole (Drexel is old) cannot be applied to what makes up Drexel (for example, the professors).
The earth is round; therefore, all earthlings are round.
#3 Circular Reasoning
When the conclusion you arrive at is actually already present in your premises (the ideas you believe support your conclusion).
It appears as if you are repeating yourself.
There’s only survival of the fittest because only the fittest survive.
What the Bible says is true because the Bible is true (or because the Bible says so).
#4 Loaded Question
When you ask someone a question to which there is no good answer and the other person cannot extricate themselves
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If you says yes, you are still beating your wife.
If you say no, it means you admit to once beating your wife.
There is no way to win.
Are you stoned or stupid?
These are usually rhetorical questions.
#5 Naturalistic Fallacy
That because something is the case in nature it ought to be the case, usually among humans.
This is taking a reality assumption and converting it into a value assumption.
Swans are monogamous; therefore, humans should be monogamous.
Bonobos are promiscuous; therefore, humans should be promiscuous.
Fish swim; therefore, humans should swim.
#6 cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Also known as “correlation = causation”
However, correlation does not equal causation
Children who wear big shoes also have good handwriting. Therefore, wearing big shoes causes good handwriting.
No, wearing big shoes does NOT cause good handwriting. These things are merely correlated.
This is how superstitions can start.
Because I wore those red socks, I hit the home run. Those are my lucky red socks.
#7 Fallacy of Accident.
The Abortion Debate The Person Argument § The Person.docxtodd801
The Abortion Debate
The Person Argument
§ The Person Argument – The traditional argument against
abortion:
§ 1. The fetus is an innocent person
§ 2. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent person
§ 3. So: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus
§ The argument is valid. It remains to see whether or not it is
sound, that is to say, we have to assess whether or not the two
premises are true. So, the questions are:
§ 1. Is the fetus a person?
§ 2. Is it always morally wrong to kill an innocent person? – This is
where the mother’s “right over her own body” will come into play
The Person Argument
§ Premise 1: The Question of Personhood
§ The notion of Personhood is crucial for the argument: It is
because the fetus is considered a person that it is considered
morally wrong to kill it.
§ Thought experiment: what would be ok to kill?
§ - an ant in your yard? a spider in your house?
§ - robots? – I, Robot example, neuroscience movie
§ SO: we need to figure out what it is that makes a person a
person. More precisely, what we need is a sufficient condition for
being a person.
The Person Argument
§ In the case of abortion, we need
§ - EITHER a sufficient condition, or a set of conditions that are
together sufficient to be a person. If the fetus fulfill these
conditions, then the fetus is a person, and then the first premise
is true.
§ - OR a necessary condition to be a person that the fetus does not
fulfill. In this case, the fetus is not a person and the Person
Argument fails
The Person Argument
§ Examples:
§ - Necessary but not sufficient: a necessary condition to get an A at
the exam is to take the exam
§ - Necessary but not sufficient: a necessary condition for being a
human is to be an animal
§ - Sufficient but not necessary: a sufficient condition for being an
animal is to be a human
§ - Sufficient but not necessary: a sufficient condition for putting on
weight is to be pregnant.
§ Notice that a set of necessary conditions can together constitute a
sufficient condition.
§ Example: fuel, heat and oxygen are necessary and together
sufficient conditions to get a fire. None of them is sufficient
individually
The Person Argument
§ Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Personhood – What
would that be?
§ Mary Anne Warren’s thought experiment: Aliens and Personhood
§ Human parents, human DNA, physical resemblance? – not
necessary
§ Viability – may be necessary, but not sufficient!
§ Soul? How do we check on this?
The Person Argument
§ Mary Anne Warren’s conditions for personhood – She proposes
the following list:
§ 1. The capacity of consciousness and the ability to feel pain
§ 2. The ability to reason.
§ 3. The ability to act in ways that go beyond instinct – to have
motives and goals.
§ 4. The capacity for complex communication.
§ 5. Having a sense of self.
The Person Argument
§ According the Warren, the fetus does not fulfill all thes.
Judith Jarvis Thomson A Defense of AbortionFrom Philosophy & karenahmanny4c
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
From Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971).
(Reprinted in "Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics," 5th ed., ed. Ronald Munson (Belmont; Wadsworth 1996). pp 69-80.)
Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.
I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that ...
Judith Jarvis Thomson A Defense of AbortionFrom Philosophy & .docxcroysierkathey
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
From Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971).
(Reprinted in "Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics," 5th ed., ed. Ronald Munson (Belmont; Wadsworth 1996). pp 69-80.)
Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.
I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that ...
4 Mistakes in Reasoning The World of Fallaciesboy at chalkboar.docxgilbertkpeters11344
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 .
We all have good and bad thoughts from time to time and situation to situation. We are bombarded daily with spiraling thoughts(both negative and positive) creating all-consuming feel , making us difficult to manage with associated suffering. Good thoughts are like our Mob Signal (Positive thought) amidst noise(negative thought) in the atmosphere. Negative thoughts like noise outweigh positive thoughts. These thoughts often create unwanted confusion, trouble, stress and frustration in our mind as well as chaos in our physical world. Negative thoughts are also known as “distorted thinking”.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
The Indian economy is classified into different sectors to simplify the analysis and understanding of economic activities. For Class 10, it's essential to grasp the sectors of the Indian economy, understand their characteristics, and recognize their importance. This guide will provide detailed notes on the Sectors of the Indian Economy Class 10, using specific long-tail keywords to enhance comprehension.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
3. theoretical reasons
reasons to believe
! My senses may tell me that the sun moves across
the sky.
! But what is really going on here – what should I
believe?
4. theoretical reasons
reasons to believe
! My senses may tell me that the sun moves across
the sky.
! But what is really going on here – what should I
believe?
! Whatever is based on the best available evidence.
6. practical reasons
reasons to act
! My impulses tell me to scream at that jerk.
! But is that really the best thing to do – what
should I do?
7. practical reasons
reasons to act
! My impulses tell me to scream at that jerk.
! But is that really the best thing to do – what
should I do?
! Whatever course of action is supported by the best
reasons.
9. the structure of an argument
an argument in standard form
Whatever is illegal is immoral.
Murder is illegal.
Thus murder is immoral.
premises
conclusion
! Premises are the given information we start with – our
reasons in support of the conclusion.
! The conclusion is what we are trying to establish.
12. Indicator words
premises
! Since . . .
! Because of . . .
! Assume for the sake of argument that . . .
! We all know that . . .
conclusions
! Therefore . . .
! Thus . . .
! So we can see that . . .
! It follows that . . .
14. Identify Premises and Conclusion
We know for a fact that my client was not at the scene of
the crime. Furthermore, the chief prosecution witness is a
known perjurer. Thus my client is not guilty.
15. Identify Premises and Conclusion
We know for a fact that my client was not at the scene of
the crime. Furthermore, the chief prosecution witness is a
known perjurer. Thus my client is not guilty.
in standard form
My client was not at the scene of the crime.
The chief prosecution witness is a known perjurer.
My client is not guilty.
17. Identify Premises and Conclusion
Christopher Columbus was a criminal. This is because
whoever steals land or gold, enslaves people or kills
innocent people is a criminal and he did all of the these
things.
18. Identify Premises and Conclusion
Christopher Columbus was a criminal. This is because
whoever steals land or gold, enslaves people or kills
innocent people is a criminal and he did all of the these
things.
in standard form
Whoever steals land or gold, enslaves people or kills
innocent people is a criminal.
Christopher Columbus did all of the these things.
Christopher Columbus was a criminal.
20. What makes a good argument?
! The best, most persuasive arguments are both valid and
sound.
definition: In a valid argument, if the premises are true,
the conclusion must be true.
definition: A sound argument is a valid argument with
premises that are really true.
22. Valid or invalid?
All human beings are mortal.
Socrates is a human being.
Whoever is going to die worries about dying occasionally.
Socrates worries about dying occasionally.
If the premises are true must the conclusion also be true?
23. Valid or invalid?
All human beings are mortal.
Socrates is a human being.
Whoever is going to die worries about dying occasionally.
Socrates worries about dying occasionally.
If the premises are true must the conclusion also be true?
YES, this argument is VALID.
25. Valid or invalid?
All human beings are animals.
Plato is an animal.
Plato is a human being.
If the premises are true must the conclusion also be true?
26. Valid or invalid?
All human beings are animals.
Plato is an animal.
Plato is a human being.
If the premises are true must the conclusion also be true?
NO, this argument is INVALID.
28. Valid or invalid?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
Can the premises both be true and the conclusion be false?
29. Valid or invalid?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
Can the premises both be true and the conclusion be false?
No. The only way for the conclusion to be false is if at least
one of the premises were false, so this argument is VALID.
30. Valid or invalid?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
Can the premises both be true and the conclusion be false?
No. The only way for the conclusion to be false is if at least
one of the premises were false, so this argument is VALID.
But is it sound?
32. Sound or unsound?
Poor people do not have much money.
It costs a lot of money to buy first class airline tickets.
So poor people do not fly first class except in unusual
circumstances.
This argument is VALID.
33. Sound or unsound?
Poor people do not have much money.
It costs a lot of money to buy first class airline tickets.
So poor people do not fly first class except in unusual
circumstances.
This argument is VALID.
The first premise is true by definition, the second is true in
fact.
34. Sound or unsound?
Poor people do not have much money.
It costs a lot of money to buy first class airline tickets.
So poor people do not fly first class except in unusual
circumstances.
This argument is VALID.
The first premise is true by definition, the second is true in
fact.
Thus this argument is SOUND, the conclusion is really true.
36. Sound or unsound?
Poor people do not have much money.
If you do not have something, you must not want it.
So poor people are poor of their own free will, because they
want to be poor.
Are both premises of this argument true?
37. Sound or unsound?
Poor people do not have much money.
If you do not have something, you must not want it.
So poor people are poor of their own free will, because they
want to be poor.
Are both premises of this argument true?
The first premise is true by definition.
38. Sound or unsound?
Poor people do not have much money.
If you do not have something, you must not want it.
So poor people are poor of their own free will, because they
want to be poor.
Are both premises of this argument true?
The first premise is true by definition.
The second premise is false – so this argument is UNSOUND,
even though it is VALID.
40. Sound or unsound?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
This is a VALID argument, but are the premises really true?
41. Sound or unsound?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
This is a VALID argument, but are the premises really true?
The second premise might be true but needs more support.
42. Sound or unsound?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
This is a VALID argument, but are the premises really true?
The second premise might be true but needs more support.
The first premise is false – not all that is wrong should be
illegal, can you think of an example?
43. Sound or unsound?
If abortion is wrong it should be illegal.
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion should be illegal.
This is a VALID argument, but are the premises really true?
The second premise might be true but needs more support.
The first premise is false – not all that is wrong should be
illegal, can you think of an example?
This argument is UNSOUND.
