Exam 1 Flashcards
normative angle
how we should reason
descriptive angle
how we do reason
what is reasoning?
to make an inference (argument)
what is an argument?
a belief that one claim is true because some other claim is evidence for truth
what are the parts of an argument?
premise(s) and conclusion
what is a premise?
reason or evidence for believing a conclusion
conclusion
claim for which evidence is given, which is backed up or justified
what is internal reason for caring about arguments?
helps rationalize the arguments you make in your own thinking
what is an external reason for caring about arguments?
arguments can be used for persuasion
indicator words
words that typically indicate the presence of either a premise or conclusion, and therefore an argument
claim
statement that reports a fact about the world
conditional
a CLAIM that reports a fact in which one event/state depends on another (if an only if)
factual correctness
achieved if all premises of an argument are true
logical strength
achieved if claims cumulatively give sufficient evidence for the conclusion
cogent
an argument that is both factually correct and logically strong
argument
one or more claims (premises) used to back up a final (conclusion)
premise
a claim that supports a specific conclusion
conclusion
a claim that is supported by one or more premises
opinion
a claim that is a belief
can you persuade without making an argument?
yes
what is the easiest way to find an argument?
indicator words
phrase to remember conditionals
if and only if
what is the difference between arguments and persuasion?
not all arguments are persuasion; not all persuasion is an argument
analyze
to break something up into pieces to better understand it
how do you analyze an argument
identify premise(s) and conclusion and determine how they are related (uncovering structure)
how do you know when a sentence is making more than one claim?
the claims can be proved true or false independent of one another
standardization
number list of claims and conclusions with the highest number being assigned to the final conclusion
diagramming
pictoral representation of how premises related to their conclusions independent of the subject matter
->
inference
+
conjunction (multiple premises supporting one conclusion)
simple argument
contains only one inference
complex argument
contains at least two inferences; at least one claim will be both an inference and a conclusion
direct reason
premise that directly supports conclusion
indirect reason
premise that indirectly supports conclusion
is analysis a descriptive or normative process?
descriptive (does not involve evaluating argument’s cogency
why do we try to analyze arguments?
to determine the structure of an author’s intended argument
logical/evidential use of “because”
gives a reason to believe a conclusion is true
causal/explanatory use of “because”
introduces claim that explains something that is already meant to be taken as true
how to determine between causal and logical use of because
is the claim that comes after the ‘because’ already taken to be true?
interrogating the text
method for finding premises and conclusions without indicator words
1st question for interrogating text
what is the point of the piece?
2ndary questions for interrogating text
am i being persuaded?
am i being given reasons to believe that something is true?
’ ‘
used to mention a word (versus use it)
The Rationality Assumption
people intend to offer good arguments and ar generally capable of doing so; being charitable to the author
charitable
assuming authors intent to use good arguments on the principle of the Rationality Assumption
missing premise
an implicit or unstated premise that positively connects a given premise to a given conclusion
rhetorical questions
questions that state a claim
Rule for Missing Premises
include only the MPs in a standardization that are required to connect the author’s stated premise(s) with the conclusion (in accordance with the Rationality Assumption)
is it possible to have unconscious beliefs?
yes
argumentative gap
condition of an argument if not all premises lead directly to a conclusion
conditional method for MPs
if [argument’s stated premise], then it is true or likely true that [arguments stated conclusion]
what is the best way for attributing charitable MPs to an argument with an argumentative gap?
the conditional method
how do you know if an argumentative has an argumentative gap
ask: could a rational person objective in principle to a given premise?
how many MPs can there be in an argument?
up to one for each inference
what must you do before deciding if a MP is necessary?
find the MP!
why would you use the conditional method?
bridges the argumentative gap without assuming the author is trying to say anything they may not be trying to say
peripheral information
claims in an argument that are neither a premise or a conclusion
report
type of peripheral information that is a description of an argument that is being made by someone who is not the author
conjoined premises
premises that are meant to be taken together to support a conclusion
independent premises
premises that are meant to be taken as independent of one another in support of the conclusion
how do you know if two premises are independent?
only if the author explicitly states that they are meant to be taken as separate
why do we usually assume premises are conjoined?
it is more charitable to the author if we assume the premises are meant to be taken together
objections
type of peripheral information in which an author interrupts their own argument to acknowledge the opposite perspective to their argument
types of peripheral information
objections, reports of other arguments
do you standardize objections to an argument?
no
what do you do first - analysis or evaluation?
analysis
are arguments standardized using conditional method inherently factually correct or logically strong?
logically strong
surface-level analysis
represents an argument as stated
deep analysis
includes necessary missing premise(s) and conclusion
if a surface-level argument is uncogent, does the cogency change when it becomes a deep-level analysis
no (but can factual correctness or logical strength)
how do you know if a MP is factually correct
MP is factually correct if connection between given premise and conclusion is strong (if surface-level analysis is logically strong)
arguments from analogy
author draws a conclusion about something on the basis of its similarity to another thing
how do you evaluate an argument from analogy
need to figure whether the noted similarities are relevant to the inferred similarity
argument from inductive generalization
argument based on “if, then” logic
how do you evaluate an argument from inductive generalization?
need to decide if the viewpoint of the example in the argument is representative of the larger whole it is meant to portray
bridge premise
another name for a missing premise that connects given premise to given conclusion
whose perspective should we consider when determining an argument’s cogency?
our own perspective
belief
a personal attitude towards factual correctness
antecedent
given premise that is factored into a conditional claim
consequent
given conclusion that is factored into a conditional claim
types of conditionals
statistical or universal
statistical conditional
a conditional that is likely true - the antecedent likely makes the consequent true
universal conditional
a conditional that is indisputably true - the antecedent ensures the consequent
straw man argument
an argument that draws a negative conclusion about a claim/viewpoint/organization on the basis of a misrepresentation
is a universal conditional true or false in the case that the antecedent is true and the consequent is false
false
ambiguous conditional
another name for the conditionals created using the conditional method for missing premises
are ambiguous conditionals considered universal or statistical?
statistical
contextual straw man argument
argument that misrepresents a claim/viewpoint/organization by taking the opposition’s own words and quoting them out of context
why are contextual straw man arguments more sinister?
they are intentionally misleading and take advantage of our innate trust of others’ words
how do you identify straw man arguments?
look up the claim/viewpoint/organization being criticized
evaluate the plausability of the way the claim/viewpoint/organization is represented
identify who the author is an if there are any likely biases (the less neutral, the more suspicious we should be)
are straw man arguments intentional?
most are not, though some are
