TASK 2 - ARGUMENT MAPPING + COMPLEX ARGUMENTS Flashcards
argument mapping
- functions
- represent structure of an argument graphically
- not sequential –> tree
- less demanding on the WM
- facilitate exchange of arguments in group discussions
- micro level
- textual analysis = studying texts that offer reasons/premises (+ or -) for conclusions
- look for indicators that show relationships between statements
- macro level
- represent macro level in argument map
conclusion
= main claim/contention = idea that somebody claims is true; wanted to be supported
arguments/premises pro
= statements/reasons claimed to provide support for the conclusion
arguments/premises contra
= objections = statements/reasons or evidence against the claim
single arguments
= argument consists of a contention which is justified using a single premise
composite argument
= multiple argument = argument with more than one reason
convergent argument
= argument where 2 premises support conclusion separately/independently
chain of reasoning
= contention can be a praise for a conclusion at a higher level
co-premises
= when several premises together form a source of evidence for a conclusion
- contention that bridges the logical gap between a premise and conclusion
dependent premises
= syllogisms = does not support the contention independently from the other premise
- another term for co-premises
counterarguments
= two arguments that counter each other
dispute
= claim to which several reasons and objections are linked
if…then constructions
- must always be represented as single claims in argument
- always form dependent co-premise
- provide argument with a warrant (= justification why a particular premise provides support for a particular claim)
fundamental rules
1) golden rule
= each single argument really consists of two or more co-premises
- assumes that you need least 1 co-premise (minor premise) to bridge the gap between the major premise and the conclusion
minor premise
= points at an implicit assumption needed to justify the conclusion
fundamental rules
2) rabbit rule
= each significant term that is part of the conclusion should also be part of one of the premises
- rabbit cannot simply be pulled out of the magician’s hat; it can only be produced if it has been put there beforehand
- ensures that there is a connection between the premise and the contention
fundamental rules
3) holding hands
= if a term forms part of one of the premises but not of the contention, it should also form part of the other premise
- ensures that a co-premise has a connection with another co-premise
argument decision
= process of deciding whether a passage contains an argument –> look for
- indicator words
- inferential relationship between the statements
- typical kinds of non-arguments
- indicator words
- conclusion
= so, therefore, hence, accordingly, thus, it follows that, demonstrates that, for this reason
- indicator words
- premises
= because, since, for, as, firstly…, follows from, for the reason that
- inferential relationship
- factual claim
= premises must claim to present evidence or reasons
- often falls outside domain of logic
- inferential relationship
- inferential claim
= there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons support or imply something = claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process
- objective feature of an argument grounded in its language or structure
- not always easy to detect occurrence of an inferential relationship between statements
- -> mentally insert ‘therefore’
explicit inferential claim
= asserted by premise of conclusion indicator words
implicit inferential claim
= no indicator words
- non-arguments
- simple non-inferential passages
= unproblematic passages that lack a claim that anything is being proved; no reason/premise to support the conclusion
simple non-inferential passages
- warning
= form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous situation
simple non-inferential passages
- piece of advice
= form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision
simple non-inferential passages
- statement of belief/opinion
= form of expression about what someone happens to believe or think about something
simple non-inferential passages
- loosely associated statements
= statements that lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others
simple non-inferential passages
- report
= group of statements that convey information about some topic or event
- non-arguments
- expository passages
= kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence
- non-arguments
- illustrations
= expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what something means or how it is done
- non-arguments
- explanations
= expression that purports to shed light on some event which is usually accepted as a matter of fact
- explanandum = statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained
- explanans = statement that purports to do the explaining
- non-arguments
- conditional statements
=’if… then’ statement
extended arguments
1) vertical pattern ≈ chain of reasoning
2) horizontal pattern ≈ composite/convergent argument
3) conjoint premises ≈ co-premises/dependent
4) multiple conclusions
deduction
= an argument incorporating the claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false, given that the premises are true; the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty
deduction
- indicator words
= necessarily, certainly, absolutely, definitely
deduction
- argument forms
- argument based on mathematics (exception for statistics) = conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation
- argument from definition (definition of words or terms) = conclusion is claimed to depend merely on definition of some word/phrase in premise/ conclusion
- categorical syllogism = statements begin with ‘all’, ‘no’ or ‘some’
- hypothetical syllogism = have a conditional (if …then) statement for one or both of its premises
- disjunctive syllogism = have a disjunctive (either…or) statement
validity
= determined by the relationship between premises and conclusion; whether the premises support the conclusion
valid deductive argument
= argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true
invalid deductive argument
= argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true
deduction
- truth
- knowing the truth tells us nothing about validity
deduction
- sound argument
= a valid + has all true premises (good argument)
- will have a true conclusion as well
deduction
- unsound argument
= invalid + one or more false premises or both
- when one has a good argument (valid and true) but adds an unsound argument –> argument would be still unsound (such a premise should not be considered as part of the argument)
induction
= an argument incorporating the claim is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true; if it is claimed to follow only probably
- probabilistic reasoning
- rely on the uniformity of nature (= future replicate the past)
induction
- indicator words
= probably, improbably, plausible, implausible, likely, reasonable to conclude
induction
- inductive argument forms
- predictions = from our knowledge of past to a claim about the future
- argument from analogy = depends on existence of an analogy, similarity between two things or state of affairs
- generalisation = from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group; statistics
- argument from authority = concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness has said it is
- argument based on signs = from knowledge of a sign to claim about the thing or situation that the sign symbolises
- causal inference = from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect or vice versa
strength/weakness
- results from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion
strong inductive argument
= argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true
weak inductive argument
= argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises even though it is claimed to
induction
- cogent argument
= strong + all true premises
- premises must meet the total evidence requirement (= premises do not leave out important factors)
induction
- uncogent argument
= do not meet the criteria for a cogent argument
- weak + one or more false premises + fails to meet the total evidence requirement or any combination
difference between strong inductive + valid deductive arguments
1) if the conclusion of deductive arguments is true independently of the premises, the argument is still considered valid
2) if the conclusion of an inductive argument is probably true independently of the premises, the argument is weak
valid argument form (deduction)
As are included in the Bs, Bs are included in the Cs –> then As must necessarily be included in the Cs
all A are B
all B are C
–> all A are C
substitution instance
= uniformly substituting terms or statement in place of the letters in an argument form
- every substation instance of a valid form is a valid argument –> NOT that every substitution instance of an invalid form is an invalid argument
- counterexample = substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion
counterexample method
= isolate the form of an argument –> construct a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion
- proves the form invalid, which in turn proves the argument invalid
- -> must be known or suspected to be invalid
multilayered arguments
= argument in which reasons/objections have drawn out new reasons/objections
rebuttal
= when a reason is followed by an objection
1) counterargument to a premise
2) counterargument to a conclusion
rebuttal
1) counterargument to a premise
= shows that the reason’s contention is false
- attacks content of the premise
rebuttal
2) counterargument to a conclusion
= shows that the contention does not provide enough proof to support the conclusion
- attacks the argument (link between claim and reason)
refutation
= counterargument is itself rejected within an argument
- if the second objection correct –> ignore first objection
1) refutation of a premise
2) refutation of a conclusion
complex arguments
- pyramid rule
= a well-structured argument has a pyramidal shape
- the higher up the argument, the more general and abstract it should be
- when two arguments are placed on the same level, they should have the same level of abstraction
complex arguments
- MECE rule
= mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive = there must be no overlap or gaps in any group of reasons/objections
1) mutually exclusive = within each group, the reasons/objections should be different from one another
2) collectively exhaustive = all conceivable arguments that are relevant to the claim are brought to bear, leaving no gaps in the argument tree
