Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Critical Thinking > Module 3C > Flashcards

Module 3C Flashcards

1
Q

What are the orthodox criteria by which arguments are evaluated?

A

VALIDITY AND TRUTH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the all-or-nothing characteristic of validity and truth in arguments?

A

The ‘all-or-nothing’ characteristic of validity and truth in arguments means that an ARGUMENT IS EITHER VALID OR INVALID, and a STATEMENT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the overall criterion for evaluating the STRENGTH of an argument?

A

The overall criterion for evaluating the strength of an argument IS SOUNDNESS, which
- COMBINES DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY of REASONING and the TRUTH OF PREMISES.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

How can an argument be unsound?

A

INVALID and/or
has ONE OR MORE FALSE PREMISES

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a common mistake regarding the idea that a sound argument always proves its conclusion?

A

A common mistake is the belief that a SOUND ARGUMENT ALWAYS PROVES ITS CONCLUSION, which is FALSE.

Soundness is NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PROOF.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Provide an example to show the falsity of the claim that sound reasoning always justifies its conclusion.

A

The example “Parrots fly.

Therefore, parrots fly.” is technically sound (VALID and TRUE PREMISES )

but does NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION; it BEGS THE QUESTIONS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Offer an example to demonstrate the falsity of the claim that unsound reasoning fails to justify its conclusion.

A

The example “Ian just took a cyanide capsule, cut his wrists and jumped off the top of the Eiffel Tower, shooting himself in the head as he fell, so he’ll be dead by now.”

is UNSOUND (NOT VALID), but it PROVIDES OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR ITS CONCLUSION.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Why does the criterion of soundness fail as a measure of the goodness of arguments?

A

The criterion of soundness fails as a measure of the goodness of arguments because arguments CAN BE SOUND WITHOUT BEING PROOFS, and they CAN BE UNSOUND YET STILL BE PROOFS.

The usefulness of the NOTION IS LIMITED..

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Is the definition of ‘sound’ stipulative or reflective of a pre-existing usage?

A

The definition of ‘sound’ is STIPULATIVE, not reflective of a pre-existing usage.

It is created to BE USEFUL IN THE EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Despite its limitations, where is the notion of soundness still useful?

A

Despite its limitations, the notion of soundness is still useful in FORMAL LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What notion does Govier suggest to capture the pre-theoretical idea of a good argument?

A

Govier suggests the notion of “COGENCY” to capture the pre-theoretical idea of a good argument.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How does Govier define a cogent argument?

A

cogent argument is ONE IN WHICH THE PREMISES ARE RATIONALLY ACCEPTABLE AND ORDERED SO AS TO PROVIDE RATIONAL SUPPORT TO THE CONCLUSION.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a problem with Govier’s definition of cogent argument?

A

LACKS PRACTICAL GUIDANCE on what it means to be “ORDERED to PROVIDE RATIONAL SUPPORT”

It does NOT OFFER CLEAR METHOD FOR APPLICATION IN PRACTICE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Why might an argument with NEGLIGIBLY WEAK SUPPORT STILL COUNT AS COGENT Govier’s definition?

A

An argument with negligibly weak support could still count as cogent under Govier’s definition because “support,” as defined, is a MATTER OF DEGREE RANGING FROM NIL TO COMPLETE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the two (2) possible responses to the problem raised about degrees of support in cogency?

A
  1. Cogency itself ADMITS OF DEGREES, and an ARGUMENT WITH NEGLIGIBLE DEGREE OF COGENCY.
  2. STIPULATE A CERTAIN MINIMUM DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR AN ARGUMENT TO BE CONSIDERED COGENT (e.g., ‘strong’), AND ANYTHING LESS IS NOT COGENT.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Which option does the suggestion recommend regarding degrees of cogency?

A

The suggestion recommends taking the second option, stipulating a certain minimum degree of support for an argument to be considered cogent (e.g., ‘strong’).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Why does the second option prevent the absurdity of allowing weakly supported arguments to be considered cogent?

A

The second option PREVENTS ABSURDITY OF ALLOWING WEAKLY SUPPORTED ARGUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED COGENT BY SETTING A MINIMUM THRESHOLD (e.g., ‘strong’) for cogency.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Why is soundness insufficient to guarantee cogency?

A

Soundness is insufficient to guarantee cogency because truth DOES NOT GUARANTEE ACCEPTABILITY

Acceptable premises CAN BE RATIONALLY BELIEVABLE EVEN IF THEY ARE FALSE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Why does cogency not guarantee soundness?

A

Cogency DOES NOT GUARANTEE SOUNDNESS because a cogent argument may have a RATIONALLY BELIEVABLE BUT FALSE PREMISE, and

PREMISES CAN GIVE HIGH SUPPORT TO CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT LOGICALLY ENTAILING THEM.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Can we ever prove anything with certainty, according to the notes?

A

Yes, an argument that is BOTH SOUND AND COGENT CAN PROVE SOMETHING WITH CERTAINITY.

A sound argument, in particular, DOES NOT LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT ITS CONCLUSION IS FALSE.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is usually the problem in determining whether an argument is sound?

A

The usual problem in determining WHETHER AN ARGUMENT IS SOUND LIES IN DOUBTS THAT CAN BE RAISED ABOUT THE TRUTH OF THE PREMISSES.

22
Q

What is the advantage of the unorthodox criterion in recognizing human fallibility?

A

The advantage of the UNORTHODOX CRITERION is that it GIVES FULL AND EXPLICIT RECOGNITION TO HUMAN FALLIBILITY, … ….. …. ACKNOWLEDGING THAT PROVING THINGS CERTAINITY IS CHALLENGING DUE TO OUR FALLIBILITY AS CREATURES.

23
Q

What is refutation, and how is it related to proving a statement?

A

Refutation is the process of proving that a statement is false rather than proving it to be true.

PROOF AND REFUTATION ARE INTERCHANGEABLE; proving a statement (S) can be achieved by refuting its negation (not-S), and vice versa.

24
Q

PROOF AND REFUTATION ARE INTERCHANGEABLE;

A

proving a statement (S) can be achieved by refuting its negation (not-S), and vice versa.

25
Q

How are proof and refutation interchangeable in mathematical contexts?

A

In mathematics, proof by refutation is common, where proving a statement (S) can be accomplished by demonstrating the falsehood of its negation (not S).

26
Q

How can a well-chosen counterexample be used to refute a generalization?

A

A well-chosen counterexample CAN REFUTE A GENERALISATION BY PROVIDING A SPECIFIC INSTANCE THAT CONTRADICRS THE GENERAL CLAIM.

This method EFFECTIVELY DEMONSTRATES the FALSENESS OF STATEMENTS, especially in CASES WHERE A SINGLE EXAMPLE CAN DISPROVE A GENERALISATION.

27
Q

How does finding a counterexample to an argument’s conclusion help in assessing the argument’s soundness?

A

Finding a counterexample to an argument’s CONCLUSION REVEALS THAT THE ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND.

While the EXACT ERROR IN THE ARGUMENT MAY NEED FURTHER INVESTIGATION, the counterexample PROVIDES A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE ARGUMENT’S FALLACY.

28
Q

Can you provide an example of how a counterexample refutes a general claim?

A

YES

For instance, the claim that all life is carbon-based could be refuted by presenting a counterexample of silicone-based life, such as a fictional scenario featuring silicone-based life forms.

However, if a real case of silicone-based life were identified in Beverly Hills, it would effectively refute the general claim.

29
Q

How can refutation by the identification of possible cases be effective in challenging general moral claims?

A

Refutation by the identification of possible cases can be EFFECTIVE IN CHALLENGING GENERAL MORAL CLAIMS BY PRESENTING HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS THAT CONTRADICT THE CLAIM.

In MORAL REASONING, CONSIDERING HYPOTHETICAL CASES ALLOW ONE (1) TO DEMONSTRATE THE CERTAIN ACTIONS,
—- WHICH MAY BE DEEMED MORALLY WORKING IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN OTHERS.

30
Q

Provide an example of refuting a general moral claim using a hypothetical case.

A

In example of this is found in Plato’s Republic, where Socrates challenges the claim that right action solely consists of telling the truth and returning borrowed items.

Socrates presents a hypothetical scenario where a friend who lent a weapon goes mad and asks for it back. In this case, it would be deemed morally wrong to return the weapon, demonstrating that right conduct cannot be rigidly defined by the general moral claim.

31
Q

How can the production of merely possible cases be effective in refuting claims of necessity?

A

The production of merely possible cases can be EFFECTIVE IN REFUTING CLAIMS OF NECESSITY BY ‘CHALLENGING’ THE IDEA THAT A STATEMENT IS NECESSARY TRUE.

If a statement can be FALSE OR FOR COUNTEREXAMPLES TO EXIST, then the CLAIM OF NECESSITY IS UNDERMINED.

For instance, if the possibility of blue ripe tomatoes exists, it refutes the necessary truth that ripe tomatoes are red.

32
Q

What role do definitions play in establishing necessary truths?

A

DEFINITIONS play a CRUCIAL ROLE in establishing NECESSARY TRUTHS BY CREATING CONNECTIONS OF MEANING.

– Many NECESSARY TRUTHS CORRESPOND TO DEFINITIONS AS THEY ESTABLISH ESSENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TERMS… as they establish the essential relationships between terms.

For example, the statement ‘Young dogs are puppies’ is a necessary truth because the terms ‘puppy’ and ‘young dog’ are related by definition.

33
Q

The production of merely possible cases also suffices to refute any claim of necessity about a generalisation (though such cases would still leave open the possibility that the generalisation might
yet be contingently true).

This can be seen by reflecting on the following two truths:

A

If a statement is necessarily true, then it is impossible for it to be false.
and
If it is impossible for a statement to be false, then it is necessarily true.

34
Q

“A cogent argument can have unacceptable premisses.”

A

FALSE

35
Q

“If a statement is necessarily false, then it is impossible for it to be true.”

A

TRUE

36
Q

“If an argument is invalid, then it is unsound.”

A

TRUE

37
Q

“If an argument is sound, then all its premisses are true.”

A

TRUE

38
Q

“If an argument is sound, then it is cogent.”

A

FALSE

Wondering how to tell whether or not a conditional statement is true? Here’s a tip:

Try to think of a situation in which the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. If you can, the conditional statement is false. If you can’t, the conditional statement is true.

Can you think of a situation in which it is true that an argument is sound, but false that that argument is cogent?

Easy: It is possible for an argument that has true premises and is deductively valid to be sound and not cogent when those to whom the argument is addressed are not in a position to know that the premises are true. In such a situation it is possible that the hearers of the argument won’t find the premises to be acceptable

39
Q

“If an argument is unsound, then at least one of its premisses is false.

A

FALSE

Wondering how to tell whether or not a conditional statement is true? Here’s a tip:

Try to think of a situation in which the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. If you can, the conditional statement is false. If you can’t, the conditional statement is true.

Can you think of a situation in which an argument is unsound, but it is false that at least one of its premises is false?

Easy: An argument with premises that are all true will be unsound when the argument is invalid.

40
Q

“If an argument is unsound, then it is invalid.”

A

FALSE

Wondering how to tell whether or not a conditional statement is true? Here’s a tip:

Try to think of a situation in which the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. This is called a counterexample. If you can produce a counterexample, the conditional statement is false. If you can’t produce a counterexample, the conditional statement is true.

Can you think of a situation in which an argument is unsound, but it is false that the argument is invalid?

Easy: A valid argument will be unsound when it has one or more false premises.

41
Q

“If an argument is unsound, then its conclusion is false.”

A

FALSE

42
Q

“If an argument’s conclusion is false, then at least one of its premisses is false.”

A

FALSE

43
Q

“If an argument’s conclusion is false, then that argument is unsound.”

A

TRUE

A sound argument is deductively valid and has true premises.

An argument is deductively valid when, supposing the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

So, when an argument is sound, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Put another way: when an argument has a false conclusion, this is sufficient for us to conclude that the argument is unsound.

44
Q

“If an argument’s conclusion is true, then at least one of its premisses is true.”

A

FALSE

Suppose a very implausible and invalid argument with false premises is put forward so as to establish some claim that just happens to be true for very different reasons. This would be an argument with a true conclusion whose premises are all false.

Only when an argument is deductively valid can we infer anything about the truth of the premises from the fact that the conclusion is true.

45
Q

“If an argument’s conclusion is true, then its premisses are all true.”

A

FALSE

46
Q

“If it is possible for a statement to be false, then it is not necessarily true.”

A

TRUE

47
Q

For an argument to be cogent, must it be valid?

A

NO

Deductive validity is the “gold standard” of support relationships between premises and conclusions.

But it is not necessary for cogency, which requires only strong suppor

48
Q

Is a valid argument with acceptable premisses thereby guaranteed to be cogent?

A

YES

49
Q

Is a valid argument with acceptable premisses thereby guaranteed to be sound?

A

NO

50
Q

The following reasoning is cogent — “Iron is heavier than hydrogen; therefore, iron is heavier than hydrogen.”

A

FALSE

51
Q

The following reasoning is sound — “Iron is heavier than hydrogen; therefore, iron is heavier than hydrogen.”

A

TRUE
The premise is true.

The conclusion is true.

The premise deductively entails the conclusion.

(Though this is only because the premise is the conclusion.)

The argument is thus a sound argument.

52
Q
A

Critical Thinking (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions