Logic and Argumentation Flashcards
Arguments are mental tools. What is one major difference between arguments and other tools such as hand-held media devices?
To understand and use an argument properly, you must understand all of its parts, but you do not need to know how different pieces of technology work to use them efficiently
The study of logic and argumentation can be broadly divided into two major parts. Cite the correct names for these broad divisions and then briefly explain what specific aspects of argumentation each approach captures. On which approach is an argument goal-oriented?
-the pragmatic approach asserts that argumentation is a social practice or social interaction in which people come together to speak about issues and topics
-the structural approach claims that an argument is a set of topics that support a main point
- the pragmatic approach is goal-oriented because people are trying to come to an agreement of who is right and who is wrong; using superior reasons to support your belief and provide justification for your stance
Are the two approaches to the study of argument mutually exclusive or complementary? If not mutually exclusive, how might our understanding of argumentation be importantly incomplete if we were limited to just one of these approaches?
they are complementary
-using only the structural approach would take out the social aspect of argument; arguments must be made by the human thinker, so we would have no reason as to why people argue; sentences cannot make arguments on their own without a human thinker to formulate it
-using just the pragmatic approach would make us lose the central structure of an argument (a set of premises supporting a conclusion); it allows us to articulate arguments and zeros in on the types of sentences and evidential and logical relationships between these sentences
Language is a system for encoding and expressing thought and reasoning. Linguistic analysis can be done on many levels. At which level of linguistic analysis do we find the building blocks of an argument?
the building blocks of all arguments are found at the sentence level
Is there a particular type of linguistic item found on the sentence level that is of special interest to the logician? If so, what is it and why are linguistic items of this type of special interest to logicians?
-declarative/ informative sentences are of special interest to logicians because they can be either true or false making them truth evaluable. True statements help aid a logician in strengthening their argument. Sentences are units of information
Logic makes use of specialized vocabulary. What two terms are needed to refer to, and talk about, the special parts of an argument? Cite the two terms and define each term. what is the formula for an argument?
-premise- a statement providing support for the conclusion
-conclusion- statement being supported
-Argument= premise + conclusion
What are the three verbal definitions of an argument? Which ones align with the structural approach and which ones align with the pragmatic approach?
- a type of speech-act whereby someone asserts something based on certain other things (pragmatic)
- speech-act where one asserts/infers a statement to be true based on certain other statements that are thought to be true (pragmatic)
- set of statements where one is the conclusion, and the rest are premises that support it (structural)
Evaluating arguments is a two-step process. What is the proper procedure for evaluating an argument?
- assess the interference connection
- determine acceptability
When engaged in the process of evaluating an argument, which two questions should you ask about a given argument right off the bat?
- is there a relevant support relationship between the stated premises and the conclusion?
- would the conclusion be true if the premises were true?
Is the sequence of the steps to evaluating an argument important? if so, why?
in some cases, you do not need to so the second stem id the first step is incorrect, so doing the first step first is important to determine if you need to do the second
can you generally rely on the truth-value of an argument’s premises and its conclusion in order to determine whether an argument is a good argument?
no you cannot, even if the premises are true and the conclusion is true, the premises may not be supporting or relating to the conclusion sufficiently
is the mere prescense of markers like ‘it follows that’ or ‘it must be true that’ always an absolutely reliable guide to judging the actual strength of an argument’s support relationship? Explain
-arguers may want to inflate the support relationship of their argument, but there may not be a concrete guide for if the following statement is actually true or as strong as the arguer makes it seem. the argument must mechanically guide you to a conclusion instead of just using language
to assess whether an argument is a good argument, it is generally advantageous to classify the argument under consideration as either inductive or deductive. Why might this be so? Why might it be important to understand the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments? what rational error might it help arguers/reasoners to avoid?
-each has their own distinctive evaluative criterea to decide if it is a good argument
-they have to be evaluated differently so the validity may change based on the type of argument
-deductive arguments are the highest grade of arguent
-it does not let you reject a perfectly good inductive argument because it falls short of deductive proof
what special terminology is used to evaluate the different types of arguments?
-deductive- validity of soundness
-inductive- strength and cogency
what is distinctive about the support relationship of a deductive argument? What is the difference between inductive and deductive arguments?
-in deductive arguments, the argument is valid if there is an absolute degree of truth for the conclusion based on the premises
-the difference between them is that deductive arguments absolutely declare the truth of the conclusion while inductive arguments make the conclusion probable
deductive arguments are either valid or invalid. what is logical validity?
an argument where if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
is validity a characteristic of individual propositions or statements? Does it make sense to characterize a single isolated statement as either valid or invalid?
- because it only applies to arguments as a whole and it is used to describe the support relationship between the premises and conclusion
what is the difference between normal and normative?
-normal is what frequently happens and pertains to statistical frequencies
normative is what ought to be the case and pertains to what should occur
what are the 5 pre-conditions for persuasive dialogues as well as the additional 6th?
-the issue of uncertainty and controversy; there is doubt in the subject area
-the viewpoints of the participants
-the opposition of those viewpoints
-the use or purpose of the arguments
-the characteristic of civility/cooperativeness
-willingness to abandon one’s POV if there are good reasons to do so
what is interference?
a subjective act performed by a human reasoner where an arguer comes to believe a statement to be true based on believing certain other things to be true
what is implication?
an objective logical relationship between two or more statements
what are the two things that can cause an argument to go wrong?
faulty logic and faulty information
what is strength when evaluating arguments?
used for inductive arguments where if all premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true
