Logic / Reasoning

Question 1

What is Logic?

Answer 1

The studying of argumentation

Question 2

What are the two parts of an argument?

Answer 2

The premises and conclusion

Question 3

What is a valid argument?

Answer 3

One which the conclusion adequately follows from the conglomeration of premises

Question 3

What is a valid argument?

Answer 3

One which the conclusion adequately follows from the conglomeration of premises

Question 4

Is the truth of the conclusions or premises correlated with the soundness or validity of the logical structure of an argument?

Answer 4

No. One can maintain a conglomeration of premises that are mendaciously erroneous in their nature, however, still designate and materialize a sound conclusion, independent of the deprivation of “truth” that’s characteristic of the premises.

Question 5

Does the truthfulness of the totality of premises necessitate a logically sound conclusion?

Answer 5

No. You can have a collection and aggregation of premises that are all factually veracious however the structure of the logical argument can be invalid, resulting in the arrival of an erroneous conclusion.

Question 6

What is Deductive Reasoning?

Answer 6

an argument in which the truth of the premises necessarily guarantees and necessitates the veracity and verisimilitude of the conclusion.

Question 6

What is Deductive Reasoning?

Answer 6

an argument in which the truth of the premises necessarily guarantees and necessitates the veracity and verisimilitude of the conclusion.

Question 7

What is Inductive Reasoning?

Answer 7

A structure of an argument where the truth of the premises gives good reason to believe the conclusion, but does not absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Question 8

What are the limitations of inductive reasoning?

Answer 8

You can never institute a conclusion from the modality of inductive reasoning without additional background information and knowledge concerning the subject. In other words, you cannot engage in the extraction and extrapolation of a conclusion from a conglomeration of data and research without additional information concerning the subject.

Question 9

Who was Karl Popper?

Answer 9

A philosopher of science whom engaged in the delineation of his dubiety towards scientist being motivated to inaugurate processes of inductive reasoning. Scientists only effectuate deductive reasoning to guide their conclusions, and for all other data, actuate a methedological machination of falsification.

Question 10

Falscificationism:

Answer 10

Falsificationism, as opposed to verificationism, claims that the main activity of a researcher is to invalidate a theory by observation or experiment. The confirmation or corroboration of a theory can only rely on the failure of attempted falsifications.

Question 11

What are some exemplars of deductive reasoning?

Answer 11

p. All students in this class take notes p. John is a student of the class C. therefore, John takes notes.

Question 12

What is an example of inductive reasoning?

Answer 12

The teacher wrote on the chalkboard everyday, therefore, the teacher will write on the chalkboard tomorrow.

Question 13

Is-Ought fallacy?

Answer 13

deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.

Question 14

What is the Natural Fallacy?

Answer 14

any attempt to define the word good in terms of some natural quality; example : Breastfeeding is the natural way to feed children. Therefore, mothers ought to breastfeed their children and ought not to use baby formula

Question 15

Non-sequitor fallacy

Answer 15

When the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises

Question 16

Continuum fallacy

Answer 16

The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.

Question 17

False dichotomy;

Answer 17

two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more

Question 18

Slippery slope

Answer 18

asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.

Question 19

Begging the question

Answer 19

using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly

Question 20

Hasty generalization

Answer 20

basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample

Question 21

Genetic fallacy

Answer 21

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

Question 22

Appeal to the stone

Answer 22

Dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating its’ absurdity

Question 23

Red herring fallacy

Answer 23

introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?

Question 24

Straw Man

Answer 24

A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one’s position look stronger than it actually is.

Question 25

Appeal to ignorance

Answer 25

An appeal to ignorance (also known as an “argument from ignorance”) argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false or there is no evidence against it.

Question 26

Appeal to authority

Answer 26

Appeal to authority is the misuse of an authority’s opinion to support an argument. While an authority’s opinion can represent evidence and data, it becomes a fallacy if their expertise or authority is overstated, illegitimate, or irrelevant to the topic.

Question 27

What is the scientific method?

Answer 27

It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

Question 28

What is the purpose of the scientific method?

Answer 28

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.