standardize and assess arguments (Exam 1 PHIL 112) Flashcards
Argument
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
Indicator Words
suggest the presence of argument and help indicate its structure
- premise and conclusion indicators
Premise Indicators
claims offering evidence intended to support the conclusion (since/ because/ for)
Conclusion Indicators
the claim statement trying to be supported (therefore/ thus/ so/ accordingly)
Must have a minimum of ___ claims to have an argument
2; one premise and one conclusion
Standardizing arguments
putting them in a form of a correct argument: numerical claims and a therefore before the conclusion.
- “thus” before subconclusion in subarguments
have charity
Steps to standardize arguments
- check if it is an argument
- identify conclusion
- put each claim in T/F phrase form in complete sentence avoid rephasing unless necessary
- add conclusion indicators
Rules for unstated premises
- must have a logical gap between premises and conclusion
- gap must be able to be filled
- gap must be something that arguer is committed to and has context
- premise must be plausible principle of charity
Principle of Charity
don’t alter an argument to be better/ worse than it is
Degree of commitment statements
high certainty: definitely, certainly, absolutely
Low certainty: likely, probably, sometimes, probably
Scope Indicators
indicate greater/ lesser group
Ex) some, all, none, occasionally
Conjunction Rules in Initial unstandardized arguments
- “and” allows for the breaking up of premises
- “if… then,” statements cannot be broken apart or you lose meaning
Deductively valid
if premises are true, conclusions MUST be true
Any argument with a false premise is a _____ argument
failed argument; it is not cogent
Sound Argument
valid argument with true premises (cannot have a false conclusion)
Assessing argument ARG method:
A cceptability of premises
R elevance of premises to conclusion
G rounds sufficient to establish truth
R and G are logical
Cogent Argument
strong and valid argument with a true and rationally acceptable premises. BEST form of argument
Common Knowledge
acceptance based on evidence
“every animal has a reproductive system”
a priori true
acceptance independent from evidence; by definition
“every square has 4 straight sides”
provisional support
accepting for the sake of the argument
testimony
acceptance must have
- form “I have seen…”
- plausibility
- direct experience
- not judgement
“I saw him leave at 9 pm”
proper authority
acceptance must have
- a reliable expert
- be in the field they studied
- experts in general agreement
“Expert X claims…”
cogent subargument
agreement has a subconclusion with a cogent subargument (even if the subconclusion is independently true)
only use for subconclusion, still assess subargument
easily refutable
unacceptability used when 1 counter example can falsify a universal claim
vague/ ambiguous
unacceptability used only when certain that there is not enough support
begging the question
unacceptability that assumes the truth of the conclusion (evidence restates the conclusion in diff words)
inconsistency between premises
unacceptability that asserts that the group of premises cannot ALL be true
subargument not cogent
Unacceptability based on a NOT cogent subargument (even if the subconclusion is independently true)
only use for subconclusion, still assess subargument
