Task 2 - Hurley chapter 1

Question 1

Logic

Answer 1

The organized body of knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments

• allows us to distinguish good arguments from bad ones
• father of logic: Aristoteles “syllogistic logic and moral logic

Question 2

Argument

Answer 2

a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for or reasons to believe one of the others (conclusion)

Question 3

good argument

Answer 3

premises support the conclusion

Question 4

bad argument

Answer 4

do not support conclusion

Question 5

truth values

Answer 5

Truth and falsity of a statement –> many sentences cannot be said true or false
eg. questions.

Question 6

Premises indicator

Answer 6

• Since
• As indicated by
• Because
• For
• In that
• May be inferred from
• As
• Given that
• Seeing that
• For the reason that
• In as much as
• Owing to

Question 7

conclusion indicator

Answer 7

• Therefore
• Wherefore
• Thus
• Consequently
• We may infer
• Accordingly
• We may conclude
• It must be that
• For this reason
• So
• Entails that
• Hence
• It follows that
• Implies that
• As a result

Question 8

Inference

Answer 8

reasoning process exposed by an argument

used interchangeably with an argument

Question 9

Preposition

Answer 9

the meaning or information content of a statement

Question 10

recognizing arguments

Answer 10

• not nessesary that premises present actual evidence or true reasons or that they support the conclusion –> only has to claim to have evidence or reason s support or imply something
  two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to prove something
  1. factual claim
  2. intentional claim

Question 11

factual claim

Answer 11

at least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reason

Question 12

inferential claim

Answer 12

the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process- that something supports or implies something or that something follows from something
explicit
implicit

Question 13

inferential claim explicit

Answer 13

assessed by premises or conclusion indicator works (thus, since, because, hence, therefore

Question 14

implicit

Answer 14

inferential relationship between the statements in a passage nut the passage contains no indictor word. to find argument insert therefore

Question 15

Single non inferential passage

Answer 15

Unproblemtic passage that lack a claim that anything is being proven

• contains statement that could be premises or conclusion (or both) BUT missing the claim that a premises supports a conclusion or conclusion has supported by premises
  e. g.
• warning
• piece of advice
• statement of belief/opinin
• loosely associated statement: lack a claim that one of them is proven by the other
• report

Question 16

Expository passage

Answer 16

Kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by another sentence that develop the topic sentence

• when following sentence is not aiming at proving the topic sentence than no argument
• only expand it for elaborate it

Question 17

expository passage example

Answer 17

• Ex: There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Solid objects ordinarily maintain their shape and volume regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite volume, but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It expands to fill completely whatever container it is in

Question 18

illustrations

Answer 18

an expression involving 1+ examples that is intended to show what something means or how it is done
Argument: if it is something everyone accepts its most likely not an argument

Question 19

illustrations examples

Answer 19

• Ex: Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented by molecular formulas. Thus, oxygen is represented by “O2,” water by “H2O,” and sodium chloride by “NaCl.”  not an argument = no claim
• Arguments from example = illustrations that are arguments
o Ex: Although most forms of cancer, if untreated, can cause death, not all cancers are life-threatening. For example, basal cell carcinoma, the most common of all skin cancers, can produce disfigurement, but it almost never results in death.

Question 20

Explanations

Answer 20

an expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon
2 components
1. explanandum
2. explanans
argument: explanation has purpose to explain why not to prove anything

Question 21

explanandum

Answer 21

the statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained (explanation )

Question 22

explanans

Answer 22

the statement pr group of statements that purports to the explaining (Explanation)

Question 23

examples explanation

Answer 23

Ex: The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the atmosphere

• Ex: Women become intoxicated by drinking a smaller amount of alcohol than men because men metabolize part of the alcohol before it reaches the bloodstream, whereas women do not  explanation + argument

Question 24

Conditional statemnets

Answer 24

if … then … statements

2 components: antecedent and consequent

1. a single conditional statement is not an argument
2. a conditional statement may serve as either premises or conclusion or both of an argument
3. re-expression of inferential content of conditional statement to form argument
   (when conditional statement and another statement come together may form an argument)

sufficient condition
necessary condition

Question 25

antecedent (conditional statement)

Answer 25

statement immediately following if

Question 26

consequent (conditional statement)

Answer 26

following the then

Question 27

sufficient condition

Answer 27

all you need is a for occurrence of b | e.g. being a dog is sufficient condition for being an animal

Question 28

necessary condition

Answer 28

a cannot occur without b | e.g. being an animal is a necessary condition for being a dog

Question 29

deduction

Answer 29

if the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty or necessity e.g. The meerkat is a member of the mongoose family. All members of the mongoose family are carnivores. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the meerkat is a carnivore. more info see table in summary

Question 30

induction

Answer 30

if it is claimed to follow only probably --> probabilistic reasoning e.g The meerkat is closely related to the suricat. The suricat thrives on beetle larvae. Therefore, probably the meerkat thrives on beetle larvae More info see table in summary

Question 31

indicator words deduction

Answer 31

``` necessarily impossible (im)plausible (un)likely reasonable to conclude ```

Question 32

indicator words induction

Answer 32

Probably, certainly, absolutely, definetly

Question 33

Valid deductive arguments

Answer 33

and argument in which ut is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true - the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises

Question 34

invalid deductive argument

Answer 34

argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true - the conclusion does not follow which strict necessity from the premises

Question 35

How to test validity

Answer 35

1. assume that all the premises are true 2. determine if it is possible, with the assumption for the conclusion to one false - determine by the relationship between the premises and conclusion - do the premises support the conclusion?

Question 36

sound argument

Answer 36

a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises

Question 37

unsound arguments

Answer 37

a deducive argument that is invalid and has 1+ false premises or both

Question 38

Strong inductive premises

Answer 38

argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true +

Question 39

weak inductive arguments

Answer 39

an Argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to

Question 40

uniformity of nature

Answer 40

the future tends to replicate the past and regularities that prevail one spatial region tend to prevail in other regions • Bias in our judgement • Ex: In the past sugar has always tasted sweet  according to the uniformity of nature, sugar will continue to taste sweet in the future

Question 41

testing the strength of arguments

Answer 41

1. assume the premises are true 2. determine wether based on the assumption the conclusion is probably true - strength or weakness of inductive argument results from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion - total evidence requirement

Question 42

total evidence requirement

Answer 42

the premises must exclude or overlook some crucial pieces of evidence that undermines the state premises and requires a different conclusion if not met --> an argument might habe literally true premises and a probably false conclusion and still be strong

Question 43

content argument

Answer 43

an inductive argument that is strong and has true premises

Question 44

un-cogent argument

Answer 44

an inductive argument that is weak and has 1+false premises

Question 45

argument form

Answer 45

validity of a deductive argument is determined by this - sometimes valid deducive arguments don't have a recognizable form --> they are incomplete, the form is not explicit - when argument completed and correctly phrased : form becomes apparent Valid: all a are b. all B are C, All A are C Invalid: All A are B. All C are B. All A are C substitution of words into argument to check this

Question 46

counterexample

Answer 46

substitution instance having true premises and false conclusion

Question 47

Counterexample method

Answer 47

Isolation teh form of an argument and the constructing a substitution instance having true premises and false conclusions - can prove the invalidity of an invalid argument but cannot prove validity e. g. Since some employees are not social climbers and all vice presidents are employees, we may conclude that some vice presidents are not social climbers

Question 48

Vertikal pattern

Answer 48

a series of arguments in which a conclusion of a logically ptior argument becomes a premise of a subsequent argument Statement 1 is supported by 2 which in turn by 3 which in turn is supported by 4

Question 49

Horizontal pattern

Answer 49

a single argument in which two or more premises provide independent support for a single conclusion - if one of the arguments is taken away all the other ones would still support the conclusion statement 2,3 and 4 support 1 independently 2 variations: conjoint conclusion and multiple conclusion

Question 50

Conjoint conclusion

Answer 50

occurs when the premises depend on one another in such a way that if one were omitted the support that the other provide would be diminished or destroyed statement 1 is the conclusion 2 and 3 alone only weak support but both together they provide support --> 2 and 3 support 1 conjointly

Question 51

multiple conclusion

Answer 51

when 1+ premises support multiple conclusions statement 1 supports both 2 and 3 - since no single argument can have more than one conclusion, the passage is correctly evaluated as consisting of two arguments