standardize and assess arguments (Exam 1 PHIL 112) Flashcards

1
Q

Argument

A

a set of claims which one or more of them, premises, are put forward as reasons to support a conclusion (also a claim)

  • follows numerical format and has a “Therefore,” before the conclusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Indicator Words

A

suggest the presence of argument and help indicate its structure
- premise and conclusion indicators

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

Premise Indicators

A

claims offering evidence intended to support the conclusion (since/ because/ for)

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

Conclusion Indicators

A

the claim statement trying to be supported (therefore/ thus/ so/ accordingly)

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

Must have a minimum of ___ claims to have an argument

A

2; one premise and one conclusion

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

Standardizing arguments

A

putting them in a form of a correct argument: numerical claims and a therefore before the conclusion.
- “thus” before subconclusion in subarguments
have charity

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

Steps to standardize arguments

A
  1. check if it is an argument
  2. identify conclusion
  3. put each claim in T/F phrase form in complete sentence avoid rephasing unless necessary
  4. add conclusion indicators
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Rules for unstated premises

A
  1. must have a logical gap between premises and conclusion
  2. gap must be able to be filled
  3. gap must be something that arguer is committed to and has context
  4. premise must be plausible principle of charity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Principle of Charity

A

don’t alter an argument to be better/ worse than it is

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

Degree of commitment statements

A

high certainty: definitely, certainly, absolutely

Low certainty: likely, probably, sometimes, probably

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

Scope Indicators

A

indicate greater/ lesser group
Ex) some, all, none, occasionally

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

Conjunction Rules in Initial unstandardized arguments

A
  • “and” allows for the breaking up of premises
  • “if… then,” statements cannot be broken apart or you lose meaning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Deductively valid

A

if premises are true, conclusions MUST be true

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

Any argument with a false premise is a _____ argument

A

failed argument; it is not cogent

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

Sound Argument

A

valid argument with true premises (cannot have a false conclusion)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Assessing argument ARG method:

A

A cceptability of premises
R elevance of premises to conclusion
G rounds sufficient to establish truth

R and G are logical

17
Q

Cogent Argument

A

strong and valid argument with a true and rationally acceptable premises. BEST form of argument

18
Q

Common Knowledge

A

acceptance based on evidence
“every animal has a reproductive system”

19
Q

a priori true

A

acceptance independent from evidence; by definition
“every square has 4 straight sides”

20
Q

provisional support

A

accepting for the sake of the argument

21
Q

testimony

A

acceptance must have
- form “I have seen…”
- plausibility
- direct experience
- not judgement

“I saw him leave at 9 pm”

22
Q

proper authority

A

acceptance must have
- a reliable expert
- be in the field they studied
- experts in general agreement

“Expert X claims…”

23
Q

cogent subargument

A

agreement has a subconclusion with a cogent subargument (even if the subconclusion is independently true)
only use for subconclusion, still assess subargument

24
Q

easily refutable

A

unacceptability used when 1 counter example can falsify a universal claim

25
Q

vague/ ambiguous

A

unacceptability used only when certain that there is not enough support

26
Q

begging the question

A

unacceptability that assumes the truth of the conclusion (evidence restates the conclusion in diff words)

27
Q

inconsistency between premises

A

unacceptability that asserts that the group of premises cannot ALL be true

28
Q

subargument not cogent

A

Unacceptability based on a NOT cogent subargument (even if the subconclusion is independently true)
only use for subconclusion, still assess subargument