Difference b/w Opinions and Argument?

Common Indicator Words for Premises and Conclusions?

(3) (3)

Argument is premises supporting conclusion, opinion is a belief held with less confidence

1) Premises - for, since, and because

2) Conclusions - so, therefore, and thus

1) Linear

2) Linked

3) Convergent

4) Divergent

What are the ARG conditions? (3)

What is an important condition to remember?

What are the ways to support R and G? (4)

1) Acceptable

2) Relevant

3) Good grounds

If it fails on R then it also fails on G

1) Deductive entailment

2) Conductive support

3) Inductive support

4) Analogy

1) Universal affirmative (A)

2) Universal negative (E)

3) Particular affirmative (I)

4) Particular negative (O)

What is Conversion?

What is Contraposition?

What is Obversion?

What is Contradictory?

List the transformations from base level for all.

1) Conversion - Just flip the two statements

(ex// All P are S -> All S are P)

2) Contraposition - Flip the two statements and add a negative on to both of them.

(ex// All P are S -> All non-S are non-P)

3) Obversion - Add a negative to the form and a negative to the second statement

(ex// All P are S -> No P are non-S)

4) Contradictory - Just negative the forms don't match (A true means-> O false, E true means -> I false)

1) Middle term distributed in at least one premise

2) Term in conclusion must also be in premise

3) At least one premise is affirmative

4) Negative conclusion = negative premise and vice versa

5) Two universal premises = can't have affirmative conclusion

What is an Enthymeme?

What is a Sorites?

A syllogistic argument with an unstated premise or conclusion.

Enthymemes that are strung together in a pattern.

What are the transformations for truth tables? (4)

When are they true on the truth table?

1) inverse (not) (-) - it's true when the non-inverse is false.

2) conjunction (and) (*) - it's true when both of the premises are true, if any of them are false then = false

3) disjunction (or) (v) - it's true if one of the premises are true, if both are false then = false

4) consequent (if, then) (>) - it's true in most scenarios, it is false one when the first premise is true and the second premise is false.

What are the types of disjunctions? (2)

What is a Conditional statement?

What is an Antecedent statement?

What is a Consequent statement?

1) Inclusive disjunction - just (A v B) (one or other)

2) Exclusive disjunction - stated as (C v B) * -(C * B) Where C and B are two choices, you can't have both though

Conditional statement is one where it follows an if, then structure. (if so and so, then such and such)

Antecedent statement is the one that follows if.

Consequent statement is the one that follows then.

How do you use the shorter truth table technique?

What is a Biconditional? How do you write it?

Look at the conclusion, find how to make it false. Then check to see if all the premises are true or false depending on if the value of the conclusion is negative or positive when it is false.

Biconditional : (B > A) * (A > B)

It is a conjunction of two conditionals, it represents a necessary and sufficient condition.

What are the types of relevancy in statements? (3)

When is an argument cogent?

1) Positively relevant - truth counts in favor

2) Negatively relevant - truth counts against

3) Irrelevant - no relationship of logical support

It is cogent only when positively relevant.

What is a problem when you reconstruct irrelevant or negatively relevant premises?

What is a red herring?

What is non sequitur?

You then end up failing on the A condition.

An irrelevant remark

Has irrelevance

What is the Straw man fallacy?

What is the Ad Hominem fallacy?

When someone claims X, you assume they claimed Y and refute the argument Y.

When you attack a person rather then the argument.

What is the fallacy of guilt by association?

What are fallacious appeals to popularity?

Associating someone to a group that is looked down upon

Showing how a product is good because a lot of ppl buy it - can be many reasons, not just that

What is a fallacious appeal to tradition?

What is a fallacious appeal to ignorance?

When premises claims are based on tradition.

When we use lack of knowledge as evidence.

(We don't know is A is true, therefore A is false)

1) When supported by a cogent sub-argument

2) Supported elsewhere - another argument or has evidence from a different claim

3) Known a priori to be true - knowable before experience

4) Common knowledge - knowable from experience

5) Testimony* (expanded in another question)

6) Proper authority

7) Can be accepted provisionally for the sake of argument

1) Implausibility of the claim asserted - not common knowledge, doesn't seem likely

2) Poor reputation of the person making the claim

3) The claim having content that goes beyond the experience and competence of the person making it

1) Known a priori to be false, based on common knowledge, reliable knowledge, authority or testimony

2) Several premises produce a contradiction

3) One of more premises are vague and ambiguous

4) Premise is not accepted because person doesn't accept conclusion means that it is begging the question 

1) Deductive entailment - deductively entail the conclusion (are valid)

2) Conductive support - list reasons convergent to support the claim

3) Inductive support - Use past experiences to make an inference about future events

4) Analogy - Comparison to draw a conclusion about something

When is an argument sound?

What is the dialectical context?

When all the premises are true and provide logical support for the conclusion as it is deductively entailed

It is the context of discussion and deliberation about an issue

What are the types of correlation? (3)

Does correlation prove causation?

Does having no correlation prove there is no causation?

1) Positive correlation - Higher proportion of Qs then non-Qs are H

2) Negative correlation Less proportion of Qs then non-Qs are H

3) No correlation - About the same proportion of Qs and non-Qs are H

It does not

Yes, it does

What are the ways that a Causal relationship can be shown in an argument? (4)

Do links and association show causal relationships?

1) Using necessary conditions

2) Using sufficient conditions

3) Using a necessary and sufficient condition

4) Using contributory conditions

No, but they do construct the argument in that way

1) Method of agreement - An effort to find a factor C, in which E occurs. We are looking for a necessary condition.

2) Method of disagreement - An effort to find an absence of a single factor, C in which E is also absent. We are looking for a sufficient condition.

3) Method of agreement and disagreement - two cases, one where E is present and another where E is absent and we are trying to find C where it is present when E is present and absent when E is absent. We are looking for a necessary and sufficient condition.

What is the structure behind the Inference to best explanation (IBE) argument? (4)

What conditions are needed to make this argument reasonable? (2)

1) D exists

2) H1 would explain D

3) H1 would give the best available explanation of D

therefore

4) H1

In terms of H1:

1) Plausibility - adequate and probable

2) Falsifiability - there is specific evidence that would show it to be false and could be encountered

What is the Post Hoc fallacy?

What is the fallacy of objectional cause?

When the arguer shows only that one thing came before another and there is no evidence of correlation or causation

It is when someone argues for a causal interpretation on the basis of limited evidence and makes no attempts to rule out alternative explanations of the event

(this occurred, that occurred, one caused another)

In this argument, it is said in a premise that an action would be wrong because it would set off a series of side effects that end in a general calamity

(slippery road to hell)

What are the components of an Analogy? (2)

What is important to consider when analyzing analogies and similar analogies?

1) Primary subject - the case involving the central topic

2) Analogue - what it is being compared to

Be consistent, similar analogies should have similar results, they should be solved using a precedent

(idea set in advance)

How can you refute using a logical analogy?

What are the types of Analogies? (2)

Explain them briefly.

Find a similar analogy that made an argument weak and then use it to compare the two, they should both be weak

1) A priory analogy - uses ARG conditions, has evidence and can be evaluated easily

2) Inductive analogy - has no evidence, uses experience and cannot use ARG conditions

(this affected rats in this way, must affect humans in this way too)

What is the fallacy of faulty analogy?

What is the fallacy of two wrongs make a right?

It is a fallacy where the argument is loose and far-fetched, so loose that it is hard to classify as a priory or inductive. (ex// compare health problems to expanding cities, both entail different bad things)

It is when an alleged wrong is defended by comparing it to something similar (also wrong) and has been accepted. (ex// swearing in front of an audience is fine, people do worse stuff on television anyways)

What is the fallacy of slippery assimilation?

What is the fallacy of slippery precedent?

When one case differs very slightly from another case but have the same conclusion.

(ex// being bald and adding 1 hair makes no difference)

When a seemingly good precedent causes many bad precedents and thus the good precedent seems more like a bad precedent because the conclusion entails something bad.

There is inconsistency and these premises cannot be accepted

What is a counter-consideration?

How are they shown?

It is when, in a conductive argument there are negative things contributing that must accounted for when testing the strength of the argument

When showing an argument structure, they are convergent and connected using squiggly lines

How do we evaluate conductive arguments?

What is a pitfall that we may fall into when evaluating conductive arguments?

Find generality in premises, meaning find the specific reasons that it related to the conclusion. Some reasons will be more relevant to others, evaluate based on this.

We may get tunnel visioned and value a reason too high, thus we do not consider other reasons as much.