exam 1 (lessons 1, 2, 3, & 4)

Question 1

whats the advice you need to remember???

Answer 1

stop writing arguments from a 3rd person perspective

Question 2

explain the difference in subjective and objective evaluation

Answer 2

subjectively evaluating is judging an argument based on how it makes you feel

objectively evaluating is judging based on the argument’s features

Question 3

what are the 2 objective ways of evaluating an argument?

Answer 3

1) determine if the propositions are true or false

2) assuming the premises are true, how well would they support the conclusion?

Question 4

what does it mean for an argument to be deductively valid?

Answer 4

deductively valid arguments involve the conclusion NECESSARILY following the premises.

(it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are assumed to be true)

Question 5

what does it mean for an argument to be deductively invalid?

Answer 5

it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. you must be able to prove one scenario (real or imagined) where this can happen

Question 6

can a deductively valid argument have a false premise or conclusion?

Answer 6

yes; the propositions don’t have to be factually true

Question 7

arguments can be valid. can propositions be valid?

Answer 7

no, only an argument can be valid; individual propositions cannot be

Question 8

what is an inductively strong argument?

Answer 8

an argument that has a conclusion that’s over 75% likely to be true, given the premises

Question 9

what does it mean for an argument to be deductively sound?

Answer 9

the premises are true and the conclusion follows necessarily

Question 10

what does it mean for an argument to be deductively UNsound?

Answer 10

at least one premise is untrue OR the conclusion does not follow necessarily

Question 11

what does it mean for an argument to be inductively cogent?

Answer 11

the premises are true and the argument is inductively strong

Question 12

what does it mean for an argument to be inductively UNcogent?

Answer 12

at least one premise is untrue OR argument is inductively weak

Question 13

what are the 2 informal tests for seeing if an argument is deductively valid?

Answer 13

the logical intuition test and the imagination test

Question 14

what is the logical intuition test? what are its three flaws?

Answer 14

you use your gut feeling to determine if an argument is valid. this can often times fail because people can have differing gut feelings, people have limited knowledge on certain topics, and there’s not a strong reason to believe that humans have intuition

Question 15

what is the imagination test? what are its flaws?

Answer 15

you have to imagine a scenario where the premises can be true and the conclusion false. this can fail due to cognitive bias, inconsistent results, and the limited power of imagination

Question 16

what is a red herring?

Answer 16

an irrelevant premise usually meant to distract. they can be topically similar but never relevant

Question 17

what is the “support definition” of relevance? what are its flaws?

Answer 17

a premise is relevant if it supports the conclusion. this can be flawed because its vague about the criteria for support. it also implies that premises can only be relevant if they AFFIRM the conclusion

Question 18

what is the federal rules definition of relevance? what is its flaw?

Answer 18

evidence is relevant if it makes the conclusion more or less probable than it would be without it, AND the fact is of consequence in determining the action….. its flaw is that it only applies to inductive arguments

Question 19

what is the preferred definition of relevance?

Answer 19

P is relevant to C by either decreasing/increasing its likelihood, or P’s addition or removal affects C’s validity

Question 20

whats an issue with the preferred definition of relevance?

Answer 20

it doesn’t account for contradictory statements… say P1 is “snow is not snow” and C is “therefore, i will win the lottery tomorrow”. P1 is not true nor relevant but the argument can technically be considered deductively valid

Question 21

does a set of premises have to be true in order to be relevant to the conclusion?

Answer 21

no; here is an example:

P1: gary is a pegasus
P2: pegasus can fly
C: therefore, gary can fly

Question 22

can a premise be relevant without being relevant to anything?

Answer 22

no. relevancy is a property that can only be applied within the context of a relationship

Question 23

can a group of premises be relevant to the conclusion without being relevant to each other?

Answer 23

yes! P1 may not be relevant when isolated, but if it affects C’s likelihood when combined with the other premises, it is relevant to the conclusion

Question 24

can an argument be deductively valid without being relevant?

Answer 24

yes, technically

Question 25

what is the “bad argument” definition of a fallacy? what are its components?

Answer 25

a fallacy is simply a bad argument. it either has a false premise, a conclusion that isn’t deductively valid/inductively cogent, or an irrelevant premise

consists of ontological component (what type of thing is a fallacy) and logical one (what is the argument’s quality)

Question 26

what is the “standard” definition of a fallacy? whats an example? what are its components?

Answer 26

a fallacy is an argument that looks good, but isn’t.

the ball & bat scenario is an example of SDF

ontological, logical, and appearance-based components

Question 27

what is cognitive bias? what are 3 examples of this bias?

Answer 27

its a bias based on the brain’s tendency to process info incorrectly

ex. confirmation bias, rhyme as reason bias, and belief bias

Question 28

what is rhyme as reason bias?

Answer 28

we inherently believe that rhyming statements are more truthful…. ex. what the mind conceals, alcohol reveals

Question 29

what is belief bias?

Answer 29

we are more likely to agree with arguments that affirm our beliefs, and disagree with ones that contradict our worldview.

we also judge arguments based on their believability, not their validity

Question 30

what is the ad hominem fallacy?

Answer 30

an argument is evaluated based on some irrelevant claim about the source (the person who made the argument), not the argument’s quality

Question 31

what are 3 variants of the ad hominem fallacy? explain them.

Answer 31

1) abusive: attacking the source to discredit them
2) circumstantial: bias makes the argument “bad”
3) inconsistent: source’s actions are inconsistent with their beliefs

Question 32

is the ad hominem fallacy always negative and used to discredit?

Answer 32

no, AHF can also be used to credit an argument based on some irrelevant positive characteristic about the source

Question 33

does the ad hominem fallacy always apply when you say something positive or negative about the source? cite 2 reasons to back up your answer.

Answer 33

1) no, sometimes information about the source is relevant. if you think someone is bad with children, thats a very relevant reason not to let someone babysit your kid

2) ALSO there is a difference between critiquing a person vs. critiquing an argument made by them. (ex. michael is an evil person. evil people shouldn’t be politicians. therefore, michael shouldn’t be a politician). i’m talking shit about michael, but i’m not referring to an argument he made

Question 34

construct 2 different arguments: one that commits the ad hominem fallacy, and one that includes an irrelevant premise

Answer 34

write these down and come back to them later to grade. you can write them in the box

Question 35

what is the first definition of critical thinking? what are the key features of this definition? what is it lacking?

Answer 35

critical thinking is thinking about your thinking in order to improve your thinking.

key features: it is a reflective, goal-oriented task

issues: too broad & doesn’t mention what it is meant to produce

Question 36

what is the second definition of critical thinking? what are its key features? what is it lacking?

Answer 36

critical thinking is reflective and reasonable thinking focused on what to believe or do

key features: reflective, reasonable, beliefs/actions

issues: you can sound reasonable without actually having reasons (insisting its going to rain when there is a 0% chance), and we must have good reasons. not all reasons are made equal

Question 37

what is an argument?

Answer 37

a set of propositions arranged in a way where the conclusion follows from the premises

Question 38

what is a proposition?

Answer 38

content (usually in the form of a sentence) that is capable of being true or false

Question 39

which is a proposition:
1) which one of these is a proposition?
2) what time is it?
3) close the door.
4) david is six feet tall.

Answer 39

4) david is six feet tall.

Question 40

what are the 2 key features of critical thinking? what’s the primary goal?

Answer 40

reflective & goal-oriented… meant to improve your beliefs and actions

Question 41

is a list of things always an argument?

Answer 41

no. there much be assertions and a conclusion. for example, a grocery list is not an argument

Question 42

what are the 2 tests to see if something is a proposition?

Answer 42

naturalness test: if it is natural to respond “true” or “false”, it is likely a proposition

propositional attitude test: add a phrase like “i believe that” or “i doubt that” before a sentence to see if it makes sense

Question 43

what is the difference in premises and conclusions?

Answer 43

premises are the propositions that support as evidence for a conclusion, while a conclusion is the proposition supported by evidence

Question 44

what is a subargument?

Answer 44

an argument for a premise in a larger argument (essentially a deconstructed premise)

ex.
P2 is the main argument could be “judith is 6’6’’”, and the subargument for P2 could explain how we measured judith

Question 45

list three reasons for why identifying the exact conclusion of an argument is important for critical thinking

Answer 45

• it helps us avoid talking at cross-purposes
• it helps us properly evaluate an argument
• it helps us realize real-life consequences