lecture 8 (reasoning)

Question 1

What is the first step in analyzing and reconstructing an argument? 2

Answer 1

• identify the conclusion, then the premises
• eliminate extraneous material that doesn’t express the propositions

Question 2

How should rhetoric be handled in argument reconstruction? 2

Answer 2

• eliminate metaphors, expressive epithets, and slang
• rewrite rhetorical questions as declarative sentences to improve clarity

Question 3

What is logical streamlining in argument reconstruction? 3

Answer 3

1. simplifying arguments by using ‘if–then’ sentences
2. rewriting generalizations
3. displaying logical relationships as clearly and simply as possible

Question 4

What are implicit propositions in an argument, and how should they be handled? 2

Answer 4

• Implicit propositions are essential but unstated parts of the argument
• they should be made explicit in the reconstruction

Question 5

What is a connecting premise in an argument? 2

Answer 5

• a premise that must be made explicit to make the argument valid
• it is usually a generalization or conditional statement

Question 6

What is a covering generalization in argument reconstruction? 2

Answer 6

• a general statement that supports a conditional premise in an argument
• it is often implicit and should be included when appropriate

Question 7

How should irrelevant propositions be treated during reconstruction?

Answer 7

Any proposition that is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument should be excluded from the reconstruction

Question 8

How should ambiguous or vague language be handled in argument reconstruction?

Answer 8

Replace ambiguous or vague language with clear, unambiguous terms to avoid confusion

Question 9

What should be done if a statement in an argument is ambiguous? 2

Answer 9

• decide which interpretation is most likely intended, and rewrite the statement to convey the intended meaning
• if unclear, provide two reconstructions reflecting the different meanings

Question 10

What is the difference between hard and soft generalizations in argument reconstruction? 3

Answer 10

• Hard generalizations apply universally (e.g., “all”)
• soft generalizations are less definitive (e.g., “some”)
• Always make this distinction clear by using explicit quantifiers

Question 11

What should be considered when reconstructing arguments involving generalizations?

Answer 11

The scope of the generalization should be narrow enough to maximize its probability of being true but not so narrow that it undermines the argument

Question 12

What is practical reasoning in arguments?

Answer 12

Practical reasoning specifies an outcome and an action said to be necessary or sufficient to bring about that outcome

Question 13

How should costs, benefits, and probabilities be handled in argument reconstruction? 2

Answer 13

• Add a premise that states the proposed action is the most efficient means to achieve the outcome and that the benefits outweigh the costs
• Consider expected value when outcomes are probabilistic

Question 14

How are explanations used as conclusions in arguments?

Answer 14

when trying to establish the actual cause of a given fact or event, often using inference to the best explanation (abduction)

Question 15

What is a common mistake when inferring causal generalizations?

Answer 15

A fallacy often occurs when causal generalizations are inferred from mere correlations, leading to incorrect conclusions about cause and effect (correlation does not imply causation!!!)

Question 16

What should you always ask when an argument is not valid? 2

Answer 16

• are there premises that we know or could be reasonably expected to be true
• are there premises that would make the argument inductively forceful if added

Question 17

What is a conditional proof in logical assessment? 2

Answer 17

• a technique used to prove a conditional by showing that if the premises hold, the conclusion follows
• If a conditional conclusion is valid, then its corresponding non-conditional argument should also be valid

Question 18

How can you assess an argument’s validity by supposing the conclusion as false?

Answer 18

Assume the premises are true but the conclusion is false:

• If this leads to an impossibility, the argument is valid
• If it is possible, the argument is invalid

Question 19

refutation by counterexample?

Answer 19

showing that an argument is flawed by presenting a similar argument with the same form of reasoning but an obviously false conclusion

Question 20

How do you expose a false generalization in an argument?

Answer 20

Make the assumed generalization explicit, so it can be clearly seen and evaluated and assess whether the argument becomes valid with this generalization

Question 21

what is engaging with an argument and why is it important? 2

Answer 21

• addressing its logical structure and the truth of its premises, rather than dismissing it without proper analysis
• it is necessary to show whether it is valid or inductively forceful, or to refute its premises

Question 22

How do you engage appropriately when criticizing an argument? 3

Answer 22

1. Show that the argument is either invalid or not inductively forceful
2. Show that there is no reason to believe one or more premises, or that at least one premise is false
3. In the case of an inductive argument, show that it is defeated by another argument

Question 23

What should be avoided when criticizing an argument?

Answer 23

labeling the position of an argument without engaging with its reasoning (e.g., saying “this is clearly a Marxist view”) as this is not valid criticism

Question 24

reconstruction triangle? 3

Answer 24

• Completeness: all terms of the conclusion are connected with the premises and the premises have a relevant connection
• Parsimony: don’t make more assumptions than are originally necessary
• Charity: give best possible reconstruction (trade-off with parsimony)