Definitions

Question 1

what is logic?

Answer 1

is the the formal study of valid reason; “formal” because it is intrested in the forms of inferences

Question 2

Reasoning (inference)

Answer 2

is the move from premises to conclusion

Question 3

Forms

Answer 3

are empty (without context) and repeatable (adaptable to any context)

Question 4

Structures are…

Answer 4

content-context sensitive

Question 5

Argument

Answer 5

is an inference addressed to an audience aimed to convince that the drawn conclusion is true= dialogic form

Question 6

Difference between reasoning (inference) and argument

Answer 6

is that the inference is simply the mind process that draws conclusions from premises, meanwhile the argument is the expressed form of an inference (inference: just in the mind; argument: expressed inference)

Question 7

Critical thinking

Answer 7

is the informal logic, informal analysis of the inferences in contents– it is context and content sensitive. The inferences are studied in the concrete contexts and with reference to the contents

Question 8

Justification
Justifying

Answer 8

is the relation between premises and conclusions– it is used in the expressed form of an inference, meaning just in the arguments
Giving reasons to believe

Question 9

Reasons

Answer 9

is expressed by declarative sentences; they are thesis or proposistions– as such they can be true or false, strong or weak, relevant or irrelevant in relation to the conclusion

Question 10

Proof

Answer 10

is an argument wherefor there are no counter-reasons
The proofs are true only relatevely the language in which they are expressed

Question 11

Validity

Answer 11

it means formally adequate
Two types of validity:
- syntactic: it means based on language, that follows the grammatical rules of the language; syntactically valid
- semantically: it means that an argument is true in every possible world in which the inferences are true, thus also the conclusion

Question 12

Soundness

Answer 12

Formal validity (both syntactically and semantically) + premises are true in OUR world

Question 13

Irrelevant reasons

Answer 13

have no relation to the conclusion

Question 14

Weak reasons

Answer 14

may have some relation, but there can be counter-reasons

Question 15

Proving

Answer 15

giving strong justifications – there is no counter-reason, no counter-example

Question 16

Good argument

Answer 16

• has validity in inferences= formally adequate
• premises and conclusions are true
• is sound= is formally adequate and the premises are true in our world (convincing)
  A sound argument rationally forces us to accept its conclusions (it’s convincing)

Question 17

Dialectics

Answer 17

theory and practice of intellectual confrontations

Question 18

Pragmatics

Answer 18

analysis of the effects of speaking

Question 19

Reconstructing arguments

Answer 19

• look at possible premises, conclusions and indicators
• isolate the T-conclusion
• remove redundancies and rethoric artificies
• make allusions explicit
• add implicit premises or conclusions
• in case of complex arguments, make a list of sentences (=PARAPHRASIS)
• then represent the justification relations by a diagram (justification expressed by arrows)

Question 20

Data + Warrant–Claim

Answer 20

Data= preliminary givens (unrestricted contents)
ex. Amal was born in Italy
To move from Data to Claim we need a Warrant
Warrant= other givens
ex. because her parents are italian

Question 21

Data + Warrant + Backing– Claim

Answer 21

Backing= other data, most frequently generalizations expressing rules/ conventions, common sense principles

Question 22

Data + Warrant + Backing– Claim + Qualifier

Answer 22

Q= adverbial expressions diminishing or increasing the epistemic (credibility) of the C
They are qualifier, which modifies the claim such as “probably”, “presumably”, “very likely”

Question 23

Data + Warrant + Backing + Rebuttal– Claim + Qualifier

Answer 23

Rebuttal= counter-reason which blocks the move from D to C
ex. unless she had changed her citizenship

Question 24

Data + Warrant + Backing + Rebuttal Exclusion – Claim + Qualifier

Answer 24

Rebuttal exclusion (RE)= D-premise importing rebuttal exclusion. Anticipates and rejects the counter-reason (rebuttal). To reject the Rebuttal one has therefore to import some other data
ex. since she did not change her citizenship

Question 25

Difference between Sentential and Predicate Logic

Answer 25

• Sentential L: inferences based on the connections of sentences
• Predicate L: inferences based on the connections of predicates

Question 26

Sentences

Answer 26

= declarative premises and conclusions in arguments
Can be true or false
Are truth apt (it is true/false that…)
The alethic feature (truth-related) is only formal: it does not regard the effective possibility of knowing whether the sentence is true or false

Question 27

Sentential operators

Answer 27

• if..then
• or
• and
• not
• if and only if
  They form compound (complex) sentences (the others are simple (atomic) sentences
  TRUTH-FUNCIONATILITY
• Negation: Neg.p is true only if p is false
• Conjunction: p and q is true iff both p and q are true
• Disjunction: p or q is true iff p or q is true; at least one must be true (they can be both true)
• Conditional: if p then q is true iff it is not the case that the first is true and the second is false
• Bi-conditional: iff p then q is true iff p and q are both the same truth value: both false or both true

Question 28

Predicative inferences

Answer 28

are revealed by quantifiers (some, all, any, nobody)

Question 29

Non-quantified sentences

Answer 29

are made out of:
- objects (singular terms)= anything that can have properties
- properties (predicates)= way of being or acting of an object. Are unsaturated empty entities
objects + properties= sentences= state of affairs

Question 30

Truth (five criteria to establish truth)

Answer 30

it is context and contents sensitive
truth does not exclude falsity; untruth does not imply falsity
- Validity
- Alethic= truth is a contextual value
- Strength= the intended informativeness of sentences (amount of probable truth)
- Relevance= effective connection between premises and conclusions
- Fecundity= there is no vicious circularity– the conclusions adds something new

Question 31

Fallacies

Answer 31

= violation of one of the five criteria
- Formal= violation of validity: inferences seem to be valid
- Alethic= violation of truth: premises seem to be true
- Of strength= inductive fallacies: something is lacking, the amount of information is disguised or misrepresented, the inference is elusive
- Of relevance= violation of pertinence: there seems to be a relevant connection between premises and conclusions
- Of fecundity= circular reasoning: the conclusions seem to add something new but only repreats the premises
All of these are violation of truth

Question 32

How is it called a wrong exemplification

Answer 32

Fallacy of accident

Question 33

How is it called a wrong generalization

Answer 33

Converted accident

Question 34

Main fallacies in sentential logic (SL)

Answer 34

• AD= affirming an inclusive disjunction
• AC= affirming the consequent
• DA= denying the antecedent

Question 35

Main fallacies in PL

Answer 35

• wrong “Some”elimination= exemplification
• wrong “All”introduction= generalization

Question 36

Fallacies of irrelevance

Answer 36

• ad hominem: premises refer to some property of the proponent and not to the thesis under discussion
• ad verecundiam: a thesis is given as true because it comes from some authoritative source
• ad populum: it appeals to popular opinion and overrates common sense
• ad baculum: retaliation, threat
• ad misercordiam: arises pity, gains sympathy
• ad ignorantiam: drawing a conclusion from the negation of the other thesis

Question 37

Fallacies of circularity

Answer 37

the conclusion is implicitely included in the premises
- begging the question: the argument postulates what is to be proved
- double bind: the conclusion is justifies by the premises. the premises are justifies by the conclusion
- presupposition: arguments based on implicit, arguable assumptions

Question 38

Alethic fallacies

Answer 38

Untruth can be concealed by a variety of means
- verbal: manipulations and deceits due to ambiguity– more than one word for one thing, more than one thing for one word
- conceptual: the general difficulty of ascribing certain predicates-properties to names-objects
Vagueness and its fallacies
is a property of things that do not have definit
e borders– imprecise limits of concepts
Most predicates are vague or/and prospectival
Vague predicates create vague sentences and therefore vague truths.
Fallacies with vagueness:
- concepts are expressed in a vague way
- taking advantage of definitional vagueness
Alethic fallacies= covered deceptions– two mains
- Lying= saying some believed falsity with the intention to deceive
- Misleading= saying some believed truth with the intention to deceive

Question 39

Other alethic fallacies

Answer 39

• double bind+ generalization:
• victim blaming
• Strawman: presenting a wrong version of the opposite thesis so that it is easier to discredit it
• Extrapolation: isolating a thesis in a complex discourse

Question 40

Real arguments

Answer 40

are inductive, meaning incomplete deductions that possess two main features:
- their correct form is obtained by weakening the premises and or the conclusion
- they add new premises to D that may change the conclusion
inductive arguments can be strong or weak (the deductive form instead is valid or invalid

Question 41

Strength of sentences

Answer 41

= the amount of information that a thesis P is inteded to convey. It has nothing to do with:
- the truth (the exclusion of other atlernatives)
- argumentative plausibility (absence of counter-examples
The strength:
- is a gradualized value
- the negations of strong assertions are weak (most probably also true)
- extremely general assertions are inductively weak and argumentatevely strong
- very strong assertions are most frequently false (and more easily falsified)

Question 42

inductive fallacies

Answer 42

are semi-formal fallacies that imply:
- excess of categoricalness (presenting smth as universal-objective what is actually partial-subjective)
- inadequate or elusive information
There are:
- wrong generalizations
- fallacy of accident: what is empirically observed is categorically true and necessary
- converted accident: generalizations created on particular cases or even just one
- wrong sample
- wrong examples: against generalizing theses, we search counter-examples
- false analogy: is a weak comparison between things that only accidentally share a property. Weak analogies are used to justify generalization (strong comparisons are given by sharing distinctive and intrinsic properties)
- suppressed evidence: by adding new premises the conclusion may change