indictators Flashcards
thus
conclusion
because
premise / specifier
since
premise / specifier
for
premise / specifier
therefore
conclusion
for the reason that
premise
hence
conclusion
in that
premise
consequently
conclusion
given that
premise
as a result
conclusion
as indicted by
premise
due to
premise
so
conclusion
accordingly
conclusion
due to
premise
it follows that
conclusion
furthermore
additional premise
it must be that
conclusion
shows that
conclusion
for this reason
conclusion
for example
premise
for this reason
conclusion
as indicated by
premise
owing to
premise
this can be seen from
premise
we know this by
premise
moreover
additional premise
besides
additional premise
What’s more
additional premise
After all
additional/Counter premise
Yet
premise
but
premise
However
Counter premise
On the other hand
Counter premise
Admittedly
Counter premise
In contrast
Counter premise
although/ even though
Counter premise
Whereas
Counter premise
Despite
Counter premise
Every/ most/ all
quantity premise
Some/several/few
quantity premise
Sole/ only/ not all
quantity premise
In addition
additional premise / specifier
Still
Counter premise
In spite of
Counter premise
must
certainty / power player
will
certainty
always
probability
not always
probability indic
as
specifier
by
specifier
as
specifier / premise
if
specifier
in
specifier
after
specifier
on
specifier
that
specifer
of
specifier
between
specifier
when
specifier
while
specifier
who
specifier
required
necessary condition
depends on
necessary condition
have to
necessary condition
essential
necessary condition
only if
necessary condition
if but only if
binconditional
biconditionals
all and only, but not otherwise, when and only when, if but/and only if
all and only
bicondiitonal
but not otherwise
biconditional
when and only when
biconditional
either/or = to
if not this then that
sufficient condition must be negated with necessary condition not negated
if not this then that
inclusion indictor
or
inclusion
either
inclusion
either/or
inclusion
no, none nobody, never
exclusion
exclusion indicates
necessary condition must be negated while sufficient is not negated (opposite of either/or)
diagramming “unless”
1 throw what comes after “unless” in the necessary condition (must be negated) –> - N
2 the other half put in sufficient position
S –> - N
unless indicators
except
until
without
“some” indictators
few, many, at least one, several
means 1% to 100%
not all, not every
some are not
usually
most indic
probably
most + probability indic
mostly
most indic
more often than not
most indic
most means %
51% to 100% of the time
“most” negates to
some
valid inferences come from
two interlocking points or “most” of the same sufficient/premise indicator
that connect to two different necessary condition
A->B
A->C
= some B are C
invalid inference
when the some or most inferences are at the end of the chain
cause
casual reasoning
responsible for
casual reasoing
produced by
casual reasoning
result of
casual
factor
casual reasoning
leads to
casual reasoning
product
casual reasoning
effect
causal reasoning
cannot
certainty / power player
could
possibility / power player
not must
not necessarily (possibility) / power player
“must/cannot” conclusions
huge burden of proof
need powerful premise to back up “must” conclusion
easy to attack
must: 100% true
cannot: NEVER
“could” conclusion is
easy to prove possibility premises to prove conclusion
(need strong loophole)
1 to 100% = possible/not impossible
not necessarily conclusion
need possibility premises to prove conclusion
(need strong loophole)
0% to 99% = not must/does not have to be true
loophole can’t conflict with
premise
must be true equivalent
cannot be false
could be true equiv
not necessarily false
cannot b true equiv
must be false
not necessarily true equiv
could be false
not necessarily false equiv
could be true
negation of must is
not necessarily
negation of not necessarily
must
negation of could is
cannot
negation of cannot
could
if the sufficient condition is absent, you can completely
ignore the necessary condition/statement
all, any, anytime
suffificent indictator
each, every, everytime
sufficient indicator
if, in order to
sufficient indicator
people who
sufficient indicator
when, whenever
sufficient indicator
precondition
necessary indicator
only if
necessary indicator
the what test
when you see an indicator
ask yourself
“what is the indicator referring to?”
if what?
each what?
what is required?
what is necessary?
have to what?
seeing neither +/ nor
not this AND not that
assumption chain
the sufficient condition -> valid conclusion -> necessary assumption
the necessary condition does not prove the conclusion
the sufficient condition does that**
Loophole assumptions can be
negated necessary conditions
negating the necessary assumption will
destroy the conclusion
three commandments of the loophole
- do not negate the premises
- do not negate the conclusion
- the loophole is there, even if your loophole does not match one of answer choices there is one you haven’t think of yet
super common loopholes are
dangling variable,
secret value judgments,
secret downsides, assumed universal goals
dangling variable
new words that appear in the conclusion and not in the premise,
because if the author does not connect the premises and the conclusion exactly right, you cannot do it for them
“electronics” is no the same as “invention”
“better developed neural connections” is not the same as “greater influence in the brain
switch something up without you noticing by equating two things that are not the same
secret value judgement
the author gets judgy in the conclusion, without defining what those words imply in the definitions. Words such as:
moral/immoral
should/shouldn’t
appropriate/inappropriate
prudent/imprudent
good/bad
right/wrong
in the conclusion
secret downsides
author compares two things and says one of them is superior without giving you the full story,
your loophole will remind them of the downsides they are not considering.
ex:
The Volunteers for Literacy Program would benefit if Dolores takes Victor’s place as director, since Dolores is far more skillful than Victor is at securing the kind of financial support the program needs and Dolores does not have Victor’s propensity for alienating the program’s most dedicated volunteers.
loophole: what if Dolores have some major downsides in comparison to Victor that we’re not accounting for?
assumed universal goals
goals that the author just assumes everyone would want such as:
losing weight, lowering cholesterol, making more money, being more successful, being healthier (not a complete list)
Never assume that it’s common knowledge for everyone to want one of these things
omitted options are
causal relationship loopholes
what are omitted options?
no relationship
backward causation
new factor causing one or both relationships
3 ways to show “no relationship” in causal loophole
cause happened but the effect didn’t
effect happened but the cause did not
the study/survey/experiment is flawed
backward causation
reverse causation,
the effect was indeed the cause
vs vice versa
new factor
a third factor that caused one or
both things to happen
types of stimulus
DAPP
Debate: two people speaking
Argument: conclusion supported by premise
Premise set: no conclusion and premise do not contradict one another
Paradox: premises contradict another, leading to odd conclusion
debate
often occurred (but not every single time) when the first speaker introduce the topic and the second speaker follows with cryptic premise or two without a conclusion. Then you have to use your inference skills to complete the second speaker’s though for them.
inference design
find the interlocking point and stick to the exact words of the stimulus
controversy design
- Take an inference from the second speaker’s statement.
connect the second speaker’s premises
(and conclusion, if there is one) to the first speaker. This is your Second Speaker Inference
- Stick with a “whether” in front of your Second Speaker Inference and smooth out the language
controversy pro tips
don’t always assume the second speaker is always disagreeing with the first speaker’s conclusion,
they can disagree with the premises (because this will also hurt the conclusion)
resolution design
- Split up the two contradictory premises and put a Resolution in the middle
Premise 1,
BUT resolution,
so premise 2 (now conclusion)
- Fill in the Resolution with something that makes premise 1 naturally lead to premise 2.
The resolution bridge transform the paradox into an argument, they don’t have to yield 100% valid argument but the argument have to make sense
Powerful questions require
powerful answers
Powerful questions desire strongly worded
correct answers
that contains words
such as
all, none, every, only, every time, every, never required, always, whenever
powerful ones out of CLIR
R + L
Provable questions desire conservatively worded correct answers that contain words such as
could, can, at least, some, at least one, tend to, not all, varies, usually possible, not necessarily, possibly, sometimes, may
you should always prefer blank type answer over a blank blank answer choice
conceptually provable answer choice over a misdirected, but provably-worded answer choice
powerful-provable spectrum
Power and provability are inverses of one another.
The more provable an answer choice is, the less powerful it is. and vice versa
GREAT answer choices regarding power-provable spectrum lie in
the EXTREMES of the powerful-provable spectrum.
sHITTY answer choices lie in
the middle area of the powerful-provable spectrum
If an answer choice is neither powerful nor provable, it’s always wrong, no matter the question type.
strengthen questions
Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?
weaken questions
does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?
appeals to
looks to something to support their point
purported
something that is claimed to be true, but not probably true
apply
relevant
corresponding
a similar thing in another situation (analogous)
disanalogous
not similiar
(pre)supposition/ (pre) suppose
assumption/ assume
supposed
poorly assumed
counterargument
an argument against a given point
inconsistent statements
two statements that contradict one another
proposition
a statement
treats an X as a Y
pretends that X is Y
“used to call to into question”
given as evidence against something
“offered as support for”
given an evidence for something
“it functions as analogue for”
its similar to something else
primary, significant, crucial, significant, vital, pressing, foremost, paramount, imperative
important
the best way, the surest way, least harmful, most efficient, least damaging
best way
likely
probability
would
probability indic
could
probability
“if” is
sufficient condition indicator
“when/whenever” is
S.C. indicator
“any” “all” is
s.c. indicator
“every” blank.. is
sufficient condition indicator
“people who” is
sufficient condition
“in order to” is
sufficient condition indic
“then” is
necessary condition indicator
“only” is
necessary condition indicator
“only if”
necessary condition indicator
“unless” blank can be
necessary condition indicator
“except” blank
necessary condition indicator
“until” is
necessary condition indicator (another word for unless)
“without” is
necessary condition indicator (another word for unless)
“caused by”
causal indicator
“because of”
causal indicator
“responsible for”
causal indicator
“reason for”
causal indicator
“leads to”
causal indicator
“induced by”
causal indicator
“promoted by”
causal indicator
“determined by”
causal indicator
“produced by”
causal indicator
“product of”
causal indicator
“played a role in”
causal indicator
“was a factor in”
causal indicator
“was an effect of”
causal indicator
“at least some”
some concept indicator
“at least one”
some concept indicator
“a few”
some concept indicator
“a number”
some concept indicator
“several”
some concept indicator
“part of”
some concept indicator
“a portion”
some concept indicator
“many”
some concept indicator
“most”
most concept indicator / formal logic relationship indicators
“a majority”
most concept indicator
“more than half”
most concept indicator
“almost all”
most concept indicator
“usually”
most concept indicator
“some”
some concept indicator / formal logic relationship indicators
“typically”
most concept indicator
“none”
formal logic relationship indicators
“some …”
formal logic relationship indicators
“most are not”
formal logic relationship indicators
“some are not”
formal logic relationship indicators
“all”
formal logic relationship indicators
“segment”
percentage indicator
“share”
percentage indicator
“the probability …”
percentage indicator
“likelihood”
percentage indicator
“incidence”
percentage indicator
“ratio”
percentage indicator
“fraction”
percentage indicator
“proportion”
percentage indicator
“percent”
percentage indicator
