LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
FREE AFFIDAVITS AND NOTICES FORMATS
FREE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS FORMATS
FREE LLB LAW NOTES
FREE CA ICWA NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIRST SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SECOND SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW THIRD SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FOURTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIFTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SIXTH SEM NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FOUNDATION NOTES
FREE CA ICWA INTERMEDIATE NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FINAL NOTES
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
FREE AFFIDAVITS AND NOTICES FORMATS
FREE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS FORMATS
FREE LLB LAW NOTES
FREE CA ICWA NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIRST SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SECOND SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW THIRD SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FOURTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIFTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SIXTH SEM NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FOUNDATION NOTES
FREE CA ICWA INTERMEDIATE NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FINAL NOTES
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
Critical Reasoning
Week 8: Class 1
So far we’ve learned to…
appreciate the importance of critical thinking standards such as clarity, precision, accuracy, consistency, and fairness
distinguish arguments from non-arguments
identify premises and conclusions
recognize hidden assumptions and implied premises and conclusions
distinguish deductive from inductive arguments
assess the logical validity or strength of arguments
distinguish relevant from irrelevant reasons
identify common logical fallacies
Chapter 8: Evaluating Arguments and Truth Claims
Now, we will focus on the question, “When is an argument a good one?”
(I just saw an advanced screening of The World’s End, so you’ll be seeing a lot of references as we go along )
A good argument does NOT
Mean “Agrees with My Views”
Mean “Persuasive Argument”
Mean “Well-Written or Well-Spoken Argument”
You can tell a good argument when …
all the premises are true and the premises provide good reason to accept the conclusion
It is either deductively sound or inductively cogent.
BUT!!!
“it is not enough for an argument to be deductively sound or inductively cogent. It must also satisfy (at least up to a certain threshold) the key critical thinking standards discussed in Chapter 1.”
Key critical thinking standards
Clarity
Precision
Accuracy
Relevance
Consistency
Logical Correctness
Completeness
Fairness
Most Important
Accuracy: Are all the premises true?
Logical correctness: Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong?
But other critical thinking standards must also be taken into account, as well.
And now for something English…
Monty Python Bonus Extravaganza!
Due via email on Friday by 7pm
1-2 bonus points added to your lowest grade!
Make a PowerPoint presentation outlining the argument given for discovering whether this woman is or is not a witch. Name the premises and conclusion, show whether it is deductive or inductive, etc. Basically, is it a good argument or a bad argument, why or why not? Be sure to show your work!
Extra points for creativity!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9PY_3E3h2c
What is a NOT a good argument?
What IS a good argument?
From last time
Are the premises true?
Is the reasoning correct? Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong?
Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies?
General Guidelines…
Does the arguer express his or her points clearly and precisely?
Are the premises relevant to the conclusion?
Are the arguer’s claims logically consist.
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE Almost all reasoning we encounter includes bel.docxkailynochseu
THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE Almost all reasoning we encounter includes beliefs about the way the world was, is, or is going to be that the communicator wants us to accept as “facts.” These beliefs can be conclusions, reasons, or assumptions. We can refer to such beliefs as factual claims. The first question you should ask about a factual claim is, “Why should I believe it?” Your next question is, “Does the claim need evidence to support it?” If it does, and if there is no evidence, the claim is a mere assertion, meaning a claim that is not backed up in any way. You should seriously question the dependability of mere assertions! If there is evidence, your next question is, “How good is the evidence?” To evaluate reasoning, we need to remember that some factual claims can be counted on more than others. For example, you probably feel quite certain that the claim “most U.S. senators are men” is true, but less certain that the assertion “practicing yoga reduces the risk of cancer” is true. Because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the absolute truth or falsity of most claims, rather than asking whether they are true, we prefer to ask whether they are dependable. In essence, we want to ask, “Can we count on such beliefs?” The greater the quality and quantity of evidence supporting a claim, the more we can depend on it, and the more we can call the claim a “fact.” For example, abundant evidence exists that George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. Thus, we can treat that claim as a fact. On the other hand, there is much conflicting evidence for the belief “bottled water is safer to drink than tap water.” We thus can’t treat this belief as a fact. The major difference between claims that are opinions and those that are facts is the present state of the relevant evidence. The more supporting evidence there is for a belief, the more “factual” the belief becomes. Before we judge the persuasiveness of a communication, we need to know which factual claims are most dependable. How do we determine dependability? We ask questions like the following: What is your proof? How do you know that’s true? Where’s the evidence? Why do you believe that? Are you sure that’s true? Can you prove it? You will be well on your way to being among the best critical thinkers when you develop the habit of regularly asking these questions. They require those making arguments to be responsible by revealing the basis for their arguments. Anyone with an argument that you should consider will not hesitate to answer these questions. They know they have substantial support for their claims and, consequently, will want to share their evidence in the hope that you will learn to share their conclusions. When people react to simple requests for evidence with anger or withdrawal, they usually do so because they are embarrassed as they realize that, without evidence, they should have been less assertive about their beliefs. When we regula.
It is a nptel course pdf made available here from its official nptel website . Its full credit goes to nptel itself . I am just sharing it here as i thought it would help someone in need of it . It is a course of INTRODUCTION TO ADVANCED COGNITIVE PROCESSES
Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypothesesMaria Rosala
As researchers working in government, influencing service design, we need to know that our research is methodologically sound, our research findings are grounded in empirical data and our recommendations are logically derived.
'Understanding arguments, reasoning and hypotheses' is the first in a series of 5 short courses, covering introduction courses to various aspects of methodology in research, from the use of grounded theory in discovery research, to hypothesis testing and sampling in more experimental research.
In this course, you'll learn:
About arguments
- what we mean by an argument
- how to identify a valid/invalid argument
- what we mean by premises
- what validity and soundness of arguments mean
About reasoning
- what is deductive reasoning and where do we use it
- what is inductive reasoning and where do we use it
- what is abductive reasoning and where do we use it
About hypotheses
- what is a hypotheses and a null hypothesis
- how do we test them
Connect Conference 2022: Passive House - Economic and Environmental Solution...TE Studio
Passive House: The Economic and Environmental Solution for Sustainable Real Estate. Lecture by Tim Eian of TE Studio Passive House Design in November 2022 in Minneapolis.
- The Built Environment
- Let's imagine the perfect building
- The Passive House standard
- Why Passive House targets
- Clean Energy Plans?!
- How does Passive House compare and fit in?
- The business case for Passive House real estate
- Tools to quantify the value of Passive House
- What can I do?
- Resources
Visual Style and Aesthetics: Basics of Visual Design
Visual Design for Enterprise Applications
Range of Visual Styles.
Mobile Interfaces:
Challenges and Opportunities of Mobile Design
Approach to Mobile Design
Patterns
Explore the essential graphic design tools and software that can elevate your creative projects. Discover industry favorites and innovative solutions for stunning design results.
EASY TUTORIAL OF HOW TO USE CAPCUT BY: FEBLESS HERNANEFebless Hernane
CapCut is an easy-to-use video editing app perfect for beginners. To start, download and open CapCut on your phone. Tap "New Project" and select the videos or photos you want to edit. You can trim clips by dragging the edges, add text by tapping "Text," and include music by selecting "Audio." Enhance your video with filters and effects from the "Effects" menu. When you're happy with your video, tap the export button to save and share it. CapCut makes video editing simple and fun for everyone!
5. And yet, I was recently asked
by a prominent defense
attorney if I could come up
with a visual that would
rapidly “teach” this concept
to a jury sitting up to 20 feet
away.
6. Is there a way to visualize the abstract legal concept of
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? So that a jury can fully
understand its implications… in seconds?
Concept Clarity Challenge:
7. How do you represent in a
single, simple picture such an
abstract concept? The highest
legal standard of proof. Proof Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt. i.e. Evidence so
airtight that it compels a jury to come
back with a guilty verdict… No room for
doubt.
8. What would that look like?
Especially in relation to the
4 other legal standards of proof?
10. The idea of “airtight” is a very
interesting place to start…
11. We can think of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” as the
point at which the amount of evidence is so airtight that
it has “squeezed out” any possibility of doubting the guilt of
the person in question. There’s simply no “room” left for
doubt. All questions and uncertainties have been answered
and addressed by the evidence. The evidence has edged
them out. (Now, that’s a lot of evidence!)
12. *It makes sense that a defense attorney
would want a jury to understand this. The
jury would need to understand just how
much evidence must be presented by the
Prosecution in order for a verdict of guilty to be
given. They would need to understand that they
have to wait until they’ve received this high
threshold of evidence …before a verdict of guilty can
be given.
15. Reasonable Doubt
Evidence
5: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
4: Clear & Convincing
3: Preponderance of Evidence (> 51%)
2: Probable Cause
1: Reasonable & Articulable Suspicion
The 5 Legal Standards of Proof
Key
The evidence leaves
no room for Reasonable Doubt
The evidence leaves
plenty of room for Reasonable Doubt
VS
16. Have you ever had a complex idea to communicate
and wished to trade your "thousand words" for a single, clear picture?
What was the insight that led you to clarity?
Or, what might that insight be?
In this case, for me, it was the word “airtight.”
Isn’t it so interesting to realize that sometimes clarity is hidden in plain sight?
And How About You?