Test #1, #2, #3 Flashcards

Question

What is Philosophical Skepticism?

Answer 1

Not a view about truth, primarily about knowledge. someone who thinks truth exists and they are objective i) statements have truth-values but - ii) we don't know what most or all of them are in other words, we know a lot less than we think, or nothing at all skeptic believes in truth, and belief but skeptic does not believe in justification unless all your beliefs can be proved that it is not a dream or simulation, skeptic says belief is not justfified

Answer 2

1. Dream Hypothesis 2. Evil Genius Hypothesis

Answer 3

The dream hypothesis is the idea that we could be dreaming at any given moment and that our current experiences might not be real. It suggests that, just like in dreams, what we perceive could be an illusion, making it hard to tell the difference between dreaming and waking life. "how do we know i really went to class this morning? i couldve been dreaming"

Answer 4

The evil genius hypothesis (or evil demon hypothesis) is a thought experiment by philosopher René Descartes. It suggests that an all-powerful, deceptive being (an "evil genius" or "evil demon") could be tricking us into believing that the world around us is real when it’s actually an illusion. This being could manipulate our thoughts and senses, making us doubt everything we think we know. In short, the evil genius hypothesis questions whether we can trust anything, as a powerful deceiver could be controlling our perceptions and thoughts, making reality itself uncertain.

Answer 5

This model of truth states that propositions are only true if it is Coherent/Consistent with known beliefs/systems of well supported statements, hence the name Coherence Model. For example, you’re in Kray Klasses 500 man lecture hall and you propose that the class has more than 6 people in via the Coherence Model you would be spreading a truthful statement due to the fact it is inline with A: What we see and B: fits coherently with beliefs we already have. Despite how clear and easy this theory is, its main drawback is that when it comes to developing new things/theories they won’t pass the test due to their lack of consistency with currently existing theories, does that mean that they're not true, of course not but the theory says so. Another main drawback is the idea that just because something is coherent with current views means that it’s “true”, for example things like conspiracy theories.

Answer 6

1. Contradiction person 2. Dogmatist 3. Skeptic 4. credulos person

Answer 7

A credulous person is someone who is very gullible and easily believes things without questioning them or looking for evidence. They tend to accept what they are told at face value, even if it might not be true. as long as it sounds convincing enough

Answer 8

person of contradiction is someone whose beliefs, actions, or statements often conflict with each other. They may say one thing but do the opposite, or hold views that don't logically fit together. They argue with everything they hear, and disagree

Answer 9

dogmatist is someone who holds strong, rigid beliefs and refuses to change them, even when presented with new evidence or arguments. They are very certain they are right and are not open to considering other viewpoints.

Answer 10

The issac watt skeptic "believes nothing" and is afraid to give assent to anything" sceptic of everything, doesn’t believe anything out of fear of being mistaken.

Answer 11

Variety of quick responses to arguements that have the effect of cutting off discussion and preventing careful analysis ex: - "thats a matter of opinion" - "Let's agree to disagree." (avoids resolving the issue)

Answer 12

Propositions is true if it describes things as they actually are, this would deem it a True proposition, while the opposite would be a False propositions. These are truth values and according to the One Truth Value Theory, it’s basically the idea that a statement can only have one truth value, things are either True or False.

Answer 13

1. requiring absolute certainty for a belief to count as knowledge seems to be asking too much 2. skepticism about everything is self-defeating.

Answer 14

Belief is a key part of knowledge, before we can even start trying to understand if a statement is considered knowledge, we need to understand belief. There are 3 main points when believing a proposition 1- Believe what is being offered 2- Disbelief what is being offered 3- Suspend Judgement (neither) At a given time, only one of these 3 options can be pickled. Belief can generally be referred to as 2 main things. Firstly, personal thoughts and personal feelings, for example there are things we believe in more than others, some people have stronger belief in something like politics than what they're gonna have for lunch today. Secondly controversial things that aren’t particularly known yet/ things that can be known

Answer 15

They try their best to understand the information they recieve and form conclusions based on that information they do 3 things. Distinguish genuine arguments Understand and interpret arguments Evaluate Arguments

Answer 16

1. Inadequate Vocabulary 2. Fear of tolerence & open minded roles 3. Misunderstanding the point of argument analysis 4. misconceptions about truth and reality 5. reliance on argument stoppers

Answer 17

To ask questions we use interrogative sentences such as: 1. Whatb time is it? 2. Did you feed the dog?

Answer 18

To give commands we use imperative sentences 1. Tell me the time! 2. Feed the dog!

Answer 19

To describe things, we use declarative sentences 1. Some gardeners do not use pesticides 2. I fed the dog 3. Nixon resigned from president in 1974 *DECLARATIVE SENTENCES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS THE ONES WE USE FOR ARGUMENTS*

Answer 20

To say something is “true” is to say something is the same as the sentence describes. For example in (7) in the textbook, the statement “Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974” is made, this statement would be “true’ if Nixon truly did resign in 1974. And if Nixon truly didn’t resign in 1974 then the statement would be “false”.

Answer 21

Sentence is only true when it corresponds to the facts (of the world) Sentence is only false when it fails to correspond to the facts Some issues/examples lead people to reject CP Sometimes some details of its formulation can cause misunderstandings/fail in argument analysis

Answer 22

-Example: “The Earth is flat” (believed by people during ancient times) - Believed this because the Earth looked flat, and experts agreed - Even though we know it is not true (based on scientific evidence), during their times it was definitely true for them When it comes to discussion like this, people tend to say different POVs are “true for” the various participants in the controversy n the case of people once believing the Earth was flat: The belief was based on what they could see and what experts of the time agreed on, making it their "truth." From their perspective, this made sense, and it shaped how they understood the world. However, with scientific advancements (like discovering the Earth's curvature through exploration and later space travel), we now know the Earth is round, so the old belief is false from an objective standpoint. This example illustrates how "truth" can be seen differently depending on knowledge, context, or available evidence. What was "true for" ancient people was based on their limited understanding, but science corrected this mistaken principle. It shows how people’s perspectives are shaped by the knowledge and consensus of their time, even when later shown to be incorrect.

Answer 23

- A declrative statement is only true provided it correctly describes the world - To understand how to modify the correspondence principal we need to make two points: 1. A distinction between sentence tokens and sentence types 2. sometimes two sentence tokens of the same type are used to express the very same thought or idea

Answer 24

sentence tokens are specific utterances or inscriptions such as marks on paper or the chalkboard in other words Sentence tokens refer to specific instances where a sentence is either spoken (an utterance) or written down (an inscription, like marks on paper or on a chalkboard). Each time you see or hear the sentence, that’s a different sentence token, even if the words are the same. A sentence token is just a single instance of a sentence. Think of it like a copy of a sentence that is actually spoken or written down. If you say or write the same sentence multiple times, each time it's said or written, it counts as a different "token." For example: "The dog is happy." If you say or write this sentence five times, each one is a separate sentence token, even though the words are the same.

Answer 25

Sentence types are the patterns that tokens follow; they are kinds, or types of sentence In other words A sentence type is like the idea or plan for a sentence. It’s the same no matter who says it or writes it. For example, the sentence "I like ice cream" is a sentence type, and anyone can say it or write it, but it stays the same idea. In short, a sentence type is the basic plan for a sentence, no matter how or when it’s used.

Answer 26

1. Belief 2. Disbelief 3. Suspension Of Judgement

Answer 27

When a person believes a proposition, they believe that the world is a particular way - the way the proposition says it is. The belief can be considered true if the world is actually the way the proposition says it is, when the world isn't the way they believe it to be, then the belief is therefore false The crucial point is that whether your belief is true depends NOT at all on how strong your belief is. It depends entirely on whether your belief accurately describes the world

Answer 28

To believe a proposition is the same as to believe that it is true Ex: Believing that there is truth on Mars is the same thing as believing that it is TRUE that there is life on Mars To believe a proposition is to believe that the world is the way that the proposition says it is. It is not to think that it would be good if the proposition were true or to hope that it is true

Answer 29

To BELIEVE a proposition: is to believe that it really is true and things are the way the proposition says they are To disbelieve a proposition is to believe that the proposition is false and that the world really isn't the way the proposition says it is

Answer 30

listing each premise on a separate numbered line 1. First premise 2. second premise 3. Third premise ------------------------ *4. Conclusion

Answer 31

1. Writing in standard form helps you avoid including steps in the argument 2. Sometimes people don't bother to write down all of their assumptions, and reasons in arguments 3. People often state their premises and conclusions in obscure, misleading, or imprecise ways 4. When argument's are written in standard form, you can easily refer to the premises and conclusion

Answer 32

The whole project of extracting arguements from prose passages and putting them in standard form, and then deciding whether these arguements are good arguements is arguement analysis

Answer 33

Arguement Analysis can be brocken down into two Main steps: 1. Reconstructing the arguement - process of taking a prose passage and rewriting the arguement it contains in Standard form. 2. Evaluating the arguement - you decide whether the arguement Outlined during the first Stage is a good arguement

Answer 34

Any argument whose concusion does follow from its premises is a Well formed arguement. There are 2 kinds of well-formed arguments

Answer 35

1. Deductively Valid - impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This is known as a simply valid argument 2. Inductively Cogent - Premises merely make the conclusion probable. This is simply known as a cogent argument

Answer 36

An arguement is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises of the arguements all to be true, and the conclusion of the arguement to be false OR An arguement is valid if and only if the following condition holds: necessarily, if the premises of the argument are all true, then the conclusion is true as well. By either definition, in a valid argument the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion

Answer 37

*3 Bob voted (from #1,2) Argument #4 is valid, it’s impossible for premises 1,2 both to be true and conclusion 3 to be false

Answer 38

Use the following example to explain this: Argument 5: 1. Pluto is a planet ————————— *2. Pluto is more than two feet in diameter It might be obvious that all planets are more than two feet in dimeter, and thus if (1) is true, then (2) is also true. However (1) by itself does not guarantee that (2) is true, so argument #5 is NOT VALID An expanded version of argument 5 would be VALID: Argument 5a: 1. Pluto is a planet 2. All Planets are more than 2 feet diameter —————————————— *3. Pluto is more then 2ft in diameter Although #2 is obvious, it needs to be stated to make the argument valid

Answer 39

A pattern of arguement dispiays: the under/ving form or logical Structure of an arguement. It is the pattern of an arguement that it follows that determines lineter or not it is valid Argument 4 pattern: 1, x is an A 2. All As are Bs 3. X is a B Exampie 4: Biz-E makes a phone call but hears someone on the line either it’s his Wife or child, but sees the child outside so he concludes its his wife. Arguement 6: 1. Either My son is on the phone or My wife is 2. It is not the case that My 500 is on the phone *3. My wife is on the pinone The pattern for the arguement looks like: 1. Either p or Q 2. ~P (P isn’t true) *3. Q

Answer 40

Thus in the pattem for Arguements 4 and 5a we had a letter for standing for the names "Boris and Pluto" X, and the letters. A and B Standing for the predicates (descriptive phrases) " is a Student " "is a planet" and so on. This Sort of arguemont represents "predicare logic" OR Predicate logic is a way to describe how objects (things) relate to each other or have certain properties. Here’s a simple breakdown: Objects: The things or people we are talking about. Predicates: The properties (descriptions) or relationships between those objects.

Answer 41

Proportion your beliefs to the evidence, the more evidence you have in favour of a proposition being true, the more confident you should be that it is true It is rational to proportion the strength of one's beliefs to the strength of one's evidence. The stronger one's evidence for the truth of a proposition, the stronger one's belief in it should be (and vice versa)

Answer 42

The view that a belief can be Rational, justified, reasonable even though it is false Ex: good reason for believing the bus will come at 10am, looked at the schedule, but the bus came at 11am, had good evidence but the bus did not come when you believed it - therefore your belief was false but there was good reasons to have that belief and it was R/J/R Important difference between believing whether something is true, and whether there are good reasons for believing it, you could have good reasons for believing something that is actually false

Answer 43

1. Two people may have different evidence available to them (about some proposition) and so it may be rational for them to disagree (about whether that proposition is true) might have different evidence, so it's rational to believe different things ex: toast for breakfast one knows it from memory, another might suspend judgement, because theres no way for them to know ex: two detectives look at different evidence so they could come to different conclusions and beliefs - different evidence may make different beliefs rational - although in a disagreement there can be one person right but it's rational to disagree 2. An individual person's evidence may change over time, and so different beliefs may be rational for them at different times ex: earth is flat, but new evidence surfaces to change beliefs ex: sue's belief about Jone's character Tuesday: she sees jones being a good person Wednesday: She sees jones being a bad person Sue got new evidence, so the rational thing for her to do is revise her beliefs about Jones character Base your beliefs on the evidence, so if evidence change's it's rational for your beliefs to change as well

Answer 44

In general to be R/JR beliefs have to be based on enough of the right kind of evidence What kind of evidence depends upon the context ex: telling someone you were sick over the weekend, it is reasonable to take them on their word and believe they were sick - Now a student telling a prof they were sick and missed a test, in this case that is not enough evidence the university and prof expects some evidence to prove that. Therefore the evidence needed depends on the context. ^ That situation can be used to explain the "the higher the stakes rule" basically, the higher the 'stakes' the more evidence is required for a belief to be rational, justified, reasonable. Ex: OG simpson murder trial = high stake which needs more evidence, while a civil stake is low stakes which requires less evidence - found innocent on murder trial but found guilty in civil court

Answer 45

A. Motivational Errors - Being excessively influenced by what we want to be true or false, rather than focusing on the relevant evidence eg: lottery ticket; really hope to win - desire. Believing that you will win just because you want to win is irrational, unjustified, unreasonable - why? because not evaluating all the evidence (lottery ticket odds low) extremely high chance you will lose B. Failing to weigh all the available evidence properly 1. Ignoring some of the available evidence entirely - if we know about the evidence we MUST factor it in, it is Irrational, unjustified, unreasonable to simply ignore it eg: calculating grade ignoring final exam mark - why? final exam is needed to determine grade Ex: detective ignoring evidence 2.. Failing to weigh all the available evidence properly (aka: disconfirmation bias) - looking at all the evidence but not giving it it's proper weight. eg: got a bunch of evidence for and against a proposition, tendency to think true, see contrary evidence but don't hold it to much regard because it goes against what you think or what you want to think - to place less value then you should on the evidence that is against your view 3.. Over-valuing contrary evidence (aka: confirmation bias) - it is to give too much weight to the evidence that supports your view that you already hold or the view that you want to be true - overvaluing confirming evidence bias in favour of evidence that confirms your view, under-valuing or being excessively critical of contrary evidence 4.. Over-valuing "Psychologically available" evidence - Human tendency to put too much evidence that is easy to get , or that is vivid or memorable. Some evidence is harder to hold before our minds/harder for us to get and it might count for just as much but we tend to prioritize or give more weight to the evidence that is vivid or easy to understand or remember - not rational - giving too much weight to memorable or vivid evidence eg: scared of flying because you seen terrible plane crash on the news, but the % of plane crashes to successful flights is low, so it is not rational to be scared just based on that

Answer 46

An argument is a set of statements, one of which the conclusion is taken to be supported by the remaining statements (the premises) premises and conclusions may be true, or they may be false Based ON that Evaluating the truth-value of premises and conclusions is distinct from evaluating the rational strength of arguments - It's one thing to ask if these statements are true or false, it's another thing to ask the more subtle question - if those statements were true what would that mean for the third? what's the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion Example: 1. TMU is located in Guelph, ON 2. Kerr Hall is located on the campus of TMU ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *3. Kerr Hall is located in Guelph, ON (from #1,2) ^^DEDUCTIVELY VALID ARGUMENT - There is an important connection between the premises and the conclusion - IF #1,2 ARE TRUE, #3 WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE - This argument is in standard form, to put an argument in standard form, is to take an argument figure out what the reasons are, what conclusion its supporting and put it in that above ^ format. That process is known as reconstructing the argument

Answer 47

- Excludes logically irrelevant material - set aside everything else - Allows us to make assumptions explicit - Provides clarity and ease of reference In short; it provides a clear reconstruction of the argument, and this is essential to properly evaluate the argument

Answer 48

1. Deductive 2. Inductive

Answer 49

It is an ambitious type of argument that attempts to show that the conclusion MUST be the case. Tries to show if the premises are TRUE, then the conclusion has to be true as well. show the truth, max logic more ambitious

Answer 50

An argument is deductively valid if and only it is not possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false. ex; TMU Kerr hall in guelph In other words If all the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true too the conclusion logically follows from the premises Validity is just a feature of arguments - Conclusions, premises, statements can be neither valid or invalid, validity does not apply to those Validity = to a specific feature that arguments either have or lack, arguments as a whole validity does not equal true premises, argument is considered valid if the premises were true the conclusion would have to be true - more about the connection between the premises and the conclusion then wether or not the premises and conclusion are actually true or false EXAMPLE OF A VALID ARGUMENT 1. All bachelors are unmarried 2. Ivan is a bachelor ------------------------------------------------- *3 Ivan is unmarried (#1,2) If BOTH #1,2 are true then it only makes sense the conclusion must be true. That is what makes this argument valid. You arent trying to identify if both premises are true individually, but rather if they were true, what would that tell us about the conclusion Validity is about the logical connection between premises and a conclusion. Arguments as a whole are either valid or invalid

Answer 51

An invalid argument: 1. Some politicians are crooks 2. Professor Kraay is a politicians ------------------------------------------------- *3. Prof Kraay is a crook (from #1,2) So that is invalid because even if the 2 premises were both true, they do not guarantee that this conclusion is true Its also invalid because it is possible for the first 2 premises to be true, while at the same time the conclusion is false

Answer 52

Hold before your mind all of the premises, and you pretend/imagine that they are all true as a kind of thought experiment. You suppose that all these things are true and then you think, would they guarantee that the conclusion is true? If yes then the argument is valid. If no then the argument is invalid THE VALIDITY TEST: Imagine/suppose that the premises are all true. Assuming this, would the conclusion have to be true as well? If the answer is "yes", then the argument is Valid If the answer is "no", then the argument is Invalid There is no degrees of validity, must just be a straight answer Remember a valid argument doesn't have to have true premises, and it doesn't have to have true conclusions either: what's important is the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion ex: 1. All olympic athletes are ten-feet tall (false) 2. Prof Bob is an olympic athlete (false) ------------------------------------------------------------------ *3. Prof Bob is ten feet tall (false) all the premises and the conclusion is false, but it is still a valid argument none the less

Answer 53

False Premises, False Conclusions 1. All Human beings can fly 2. All things that can fly are red -------------------------------------------------- *3. All human beings are red False Premises, True Conclusions 1. All dogs are reptiles 2. All reptiles are mammals -------------------------------------------------- *3. All dogs are mammals True premises, true conclusion 1. If you're taller than 10ft, you're taller than 5ft 2. If you're taller than 5ft, you're taller than 2ft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *3. If you're taller than 10ft, you're taller than 2 ft In fact we do not even need to know the truth-value of the premises and conclusions in oder to know that an argument is valid.

Answer 54

1. Conjunction 2. Disjunction 3. Negation 4. Conditional 5. Biconditional

Answer 55

Conjunctions are simply 2 part sentences A conjunction is a statement of the form: P & Q P= Sentence of anything Q = Sentence of anything Ex: P= My birthday Q = I'm happy = Conjucts so therefore: It's my birthday (P), and i'm happy (Q) "It is sunny and today is Thursday" Conjunctions are compound statements, composed of two parts called the CONJUCTS

Answer 56

A disjunction is a statement of the form: EITHER P OR Q P v Q - 'v' represents 'or' ex: either a donut OR a muffin Either the picnic was cancelled OR it was sunny Either Jones committed the murder OR the butler did - any 'or' statement can use P v Q - There does not have to be any correlation at all (ex: Monkey likes bananas, and the weather is bad) Disjunctions are compound statements composed of two parts called the DISJUNCTS

Answer 57

Negation is just simply known as 'not true' A negation is a statement of the form: NOT P. '∼' = false/not ex: God exists - The negation would be that: God does NOT exist it is the claim that something is not true or that it is false ex: It is NOT ( ∼) Sunny (p)

Answer 58

Conditional is just simply an 'if then' statement A conditional is a statement of the form IF P THEN Q P → Q the " →" = if then, Q is guaranteed to happen if P happens ex: If I study (P), then I will pass (Q) - If i order donuts, then people will be thirsty examples: If it rains, (antecedent p) then the picnic will be cancelled (consequent q) If Jones committed the murder (antecedent p), then the butler is innocent (consequent q) conditionals are compound sentences made of 2 parts: (P) The Antecedent - what follows the word "if" (Q) The Consequent - what follows the word "then" - if the antecedent is the case, then the consequent will be the case Note: conditionals do not assert that either the antecedent or the consequent - Claims a logical connection between 2 things

Answer 59

The word "if", by itself, introduces the antecedent, no matter where it occurs in a statement. "If I skip class, then I'll find the course material difficult" (Antecedent First) "I'll find the material difficult if I skip class" (Antecedent Second) Both of those have the same meaning, same logic just worded differently "Only if" = Introduction of the consequent what comes after the "only if" is the consequent The expression "only if" introduces the consequent, no matter where it occurs in a statement Example: "Only if the price drops I will buy the giant TV" "I will buy the giant TV only if the price drops" Those are equivalent, and should be written as: B → P

Answer 60

Biconditonals are simply "if and only if" statements A biconditional is a statement of the form: P IF AND ONLY Q" (If P, then Q) (If Q then P) - If and only very strong connection - Any two statements can be stuck in a biconditonal Ex: You can enter the club IF AND ONLY you have legitmate ID

Answer 61

1. P or Q 2. ∼P ------------------ *3. Q 1. P or Q 2. ∼Q ----------------------- *3. P INVALID PATTERNS: 1. P or Q 2. P -------------------- *3. Q 1. P or Q 2. Q ----------------------- *3. P **These have NO correlation, the conclusion does NOT follow so therefore it's NOT valid. 1. P v Q 2. P ---------------------- *3. ∼Q 1. P v Q 2. Q ---------------------- *3. ∼P 1. Either Lefty or Righty committed the crime 2. Lefty Committed the crime ------------------------------------------------------------- *3. Righty didn't commit the crime ^^ This does NOT follow, could have worked together (lefty, and righty)

Answer 62

1. P & Q --------------- *2. P 1. P & Q ----------------- *2. Q

Answer 63

1. If P then Q 2. P -------------------------- *3. Q Any sentence that follows this structure will always be a valid argument 1. Being a teenager means you have problems 2. You are a teen --------------------------------- *3. You have problems 1. If TMU is a great school then many students apply 2. TMU is a great school ----------------------------------------------- *3. Many students apply there

Answer 64

1. If P, then Q 2. ∼ Q -------------- *3. ∼P ex: 1. If jim committed the murder, he used his gun on tuesday 2. Jim did not use his gun on tuesday -------------------------------------------------------------- *3. Jim did not commit the murder

Answer 65

1. If P then Q 2. ∼ P ---------------------- *3. ∼ Q Ex: 1. If einstein invented the computer then he's a genius 2. Einstein did not invent the computer ------------------------------------------------------- *3. He's not a genius INVALID - Because he could be a genius for other things. Even if both are true, they still don't guarantee the conclusion

Answer 66

1. If P then Q 2. Q ------------------------------- *3. P Ex: 1. If einstein invented the computer, then he's a genius 2. Einstein is a genius -------------------------------- *3. He invented the computer INVALID - This does not follow from the premises. Theres another way the conclusion is true. Even if #1,2 are true, still does NOT guarantee the conclusion

Answer 67

1. If P, then Q 2. If Q then R ----------------------- *3. If P, then R Example: 1. If Donald Trump loses the election(P), Kamala Harris wins the election(Q) 2. If Kamala harris wins the election, her supporters will be happy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *3. If Donald Trump loses the election, Kamala Harris supporters will be happy Valid sentence structure **THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL INVALID** 1. If A, then B 2. If C then B --------------------- *3. If A, then C 1. If B, then A 2. If B, then C ---------------------- *3. If A, then C

Answer 68

1. If P, then Q ----------------------- *2. If ∼Q, then ∼P ^^ VALID Example: 1. If Donald Trump loses the election(p) Kamala Harris wins(q) -------------------------------------------------------- *2. If Kamala harris doesnt win, then Donald Trump doesnt lose the election If the first premise is true, the second one will be

Answer 69

1. All As are Bs 2. x is an A ------------------------ *3. x is a B Capital letter = statements ex: god exists, then everyone goes to heaven Small letter = entity, person, or thing Example: 1. All students(As) are hard-working(Bs) 2. Omar(x) is a student(A) ------------------------------------------ *3. Omar(x) is hard-working(Bs) ^^Valid

Answer 70

1. All As are Bs 2. x Is not a B ------------------------ *3. x is not an A Example: 1. All students(A) are hard-working(B) 2. Omar(x) is not hard-working(B) ----------------------------------------------------- *3. Omar(x) is not a student(A) ^^Valid

Answer 71

1. No As are Bs 2. x is an A ---------------------------- *3. x is not a B Example: 1. No children(A) are perfectly behaved at all times(B) 2. Jacob is a child ---------------------------------------------------------------- *3. Jacob is not perfectly behaved at all times ^^Valid

Answer 72

They are modest arguments that aim to show if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely or probable Not all arguments are deductive, in some cases, premises are intended to give PROBABLE not CONCLUSIVE support for the conclusion. These are known as inductive arguments examples of inductives: - weather channel never saying 100% chance of rain

Answer 73

An argument is cogent if and only if it is not valid, but the premises of the argument are good reasons for the conclusion Or in other words An argument is cogent if and only if it is not valid, but if all the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true otherwise the argument is non-cogent - like validity, cogency is a feature of inductive arguments that they either have or do not have - It is a test similar to validity, but cogency applies to inductive

Answer 74

1. Quitting smoking tends to improve one's health 2. Mary has quit smoking ---------------------------------------------- Therefore PROBABLY, *3. Mary's health will improve - Not a valid argument, but the premises make the conclusion probable. - premises cannot guarantee the conclusion, so its not a valid argument. - It is cogent because the premises make the conclusion probable (improving health from quitting smoking)

Answer 75

1. A few police officers are corrupt 2. Jim is a police officer -------------------------------------- Therefore PROBABLY, *3. Jim is corrupt - This argument is non-cogent because the conclusion is not probable from the premises - If the premise said "most" instead of some, it would be cogent (only a "few" does not make it probable) REMINDER* A cogent argument doesn't have to have true premises, and it does not have to have true conclusions either. what's important is the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion (if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely) 1. Most chairs have 10 legs (false) 2. PM Justin Trudeau is a chair (false) ------------------------------------------- Therefore PROBABLY, *3. Justin Trudeau has 10 legs (false) ^This argument has two false premises and a false conclusion, but nevertheless it is cogent

Answer 76

Imagine/suppose that all the premises are all true. Assuming this, is the conclusion likely to be true as well? if the answer is yes, then the argument is cogent If the answer is no, then the argument is non-cogent similarly to validity test, it is checking for a feature of a argument When testing for cogency, the issue is not whether the premises and the conclusion are actually true or false; its whether the premises if all true would they make the conclusion probable

Answer 77

1. Most As are Bs 2. x is an A -------------------- *3. x is a B 1. Most professors(A) have PhDs(B) 2. Kraay(x) is a prof(A) ------------------------------------- *3. Kraay(x) has a PhD(B) ^ not a valid argument, but if both the premises are true it makes the conclusion probable so it's cogent 1. X is an A 2. X is a B 3. Most ABs are Cs ------------------------------- *4. x is a C 1. Kraay is right-handed 2. Kraay is a professor 3. Most right-handed professors are nice ---------------------------------------------------------- *4. Kraay is nice **It is worth noting that while Validity does not come in degrees, it is either valid or not, - cogency does come in degrees; one argument can be more or less cogent than another (the more cogent it is, the more probable the conclusion is given the premises and vise-versa Ex; Validity is like a light switch On/Off 51%-99% more probable than not

Answer 78

1. Most As are Bs 2. x is not an A ------------------------- *3. x is not a B 1. Most professors have PhDs 2. Zola is not a professor ------------------------------------- *3. Zola does not have a PhD prove that premises do not make conclusion likely = non cogent COGENT: 1. Most As are Bs 2. x is a B ---------------------- *3. x is an A 1. Most professors have PhDs 2. Zola has a PhD --------------------------------- *3. Zola is a professor

Answer 79

They are called ill-formed; neither cogent or valid arguments because the premises do not guarantee that the conclusion is true or even probable ex: 1. Today is Tuesday 2. Monkeys like bananas ^Bad argument it is ill-formed

Answer 80

Invalid or Valid arguments

Answer 81

cogent or non-cogent

Answer 82

An argument is deductively strong (for a person at a time) if and only if it is a) Valid AND b) R/J/R for the person to believe that all of the arguments premises are true based on the available evidence strength - relative to evidence people have validity - not subjective, either is or isn't (subjective) Ex: 1. Toronto is located within Ontario 2. Ontario is located within Canada ---------------------------------------------------- *3. Toronto is in Canada ^Have enough evidence to believe the premises and premises are true then conclusion must be true, so theres good reason to believe argument If an argument is not strong it is weak

Answer 83

1. Invalid 2. Not rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe one or more of the arguments 3. Both 1 + 2 ex: chicken noodle soup - need chicken - need noodles without one or both you do not have soup

Answer 84

Yes, it is reasonable to think that premises are false but it can still be a valid argument A strong argument, it must be valid. Not possible for a strong argument to be invalid because it must follow the R/J premises example of a valid but weak argument: 1. If you're a musician, you must be talented 2. If you're talented, you're never modest -------------------------------------------------------------------- *3. If you're a musician you're never modest ^Not rational premises for us to believe, weak but valid argument, valid because if premises are both true, conclusion is true or followed - would have to be true

Answer 85

Depends on how much evidence a person has a time to believe or not believe the argument is valid, but it is possible for not finding it strong

Answer 86

A person may get more evidence or lose confidence at different times ex: strong on Tuesday, weak on friday if it is rational/justified/reasonable to believe that all the premises of a valid argument are true, then it is rational/justified/reasonable to believe that the conclusion is true as well Rationality/justification/reasonableness comes in degrees so the more r/j/r it is to believe that the premises of a valid argument are true, the more reasonable it is to believe that the conclusion is true too It's unreasonable to disbelieve or suspend judgement about the conclusion of a deductively strong argument ^ DONT DO

Answer 87

If you have no evidence at all that bears on a claim, you shouldn't believe the claim is true 1. The available evidence makes it r/j/r to believe that it's false 2. The available evidence makes it r/j/r to suspend judgement reasonable to believe something true = evidence is good, - good evidence = supported by their premises Recall Fallibilism: it ca be rational/justified/reasonable to believe a false claim. So, an argument can be deductively strong (for a person at a time) even though the conclusion is false

Answer 88

An argument is inductively strong (for a person at a time if and only if it is) 1. Cogent and - 2. R/J/R for the person to believe that all of the arguments premises are true based on the available evidence and - 3. The argument is not defeated by the person's total evidence EX; 1. Most university professors are older than 50 2. Kraay is a university professor -------------------------------------------------- *3. Kraay is older than 50 ^Cogent because there is good reasons to believe the premises

Answer 89

The key thing to look for is whether the whole conclusion occurs inside one of the premises. If it does, then the argument is sentential logic If the whole conclusion does not appear in a premise, but the parts of the conclusion appear in different premises then the argument is most likely to be predicate logic

Answer 90

1. Argument by elimination 2. Conjunction 3. Simplification 4. Affirming the antecedent (modus ponens) 5. Denying the consequent (Modus Tollens) 6. Hypothetical Syllogism 7. Contraposition 8. Universal Modus Ponens 9. Universal Modus Tollens 10. Universal Hypothetical syllogism 11. Universal Ruling out

Answer 91

1. Denying the antecedent 2. Affirming the consequent INVALID - 1. P or Q 2. P ---------------- *3. Q 1. P v Q 2. P ------------------ *3. not Q 1. P v Q 2. Q ------------------ *3. Not P

Answer 92

affirming the antecedent

Answer 93

denying the consequent

Answer 94

1. Most As are Bs 2. x is an A 3. x is a B Example: 1. Most americans watch the superbowl 2. Bob is an american 3. Bob watches the superbowl ** Another one ** 1. x is an A 2. x is an B 3. Most ABs are Cs 4. x is a C Example: 1. Tiger is healthy 2. Tiger is a cat 3. Most healthy cats like to chase mice 4. Tiger likes to chase mice

Answer 95

1. Most As are Bs 2. x is not an A 3. x is not a B Example: 1. Most americans have never gone to the moon 2. The queen of england is not an american 3. the queen of england has (not never) gone to the moon ** Another one ** 1. Most As are Bs 2. x is a B 3. x is an A Example: 1. Most robins can fly 2. Tweety can fly 3. tweety is a robin

Answer 96

Deductive strength refers to how well an argument guarantees its conclusion. In a deductively strong argument, if the premises (the statements that support the conclusion) are true, then the conclusion must also be true. There's no way for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time. It’s like solving a math problem—if you follow the rules and the information you start with is correct, you’ll get the right answer. For example: All dogs are animals. (Premise) Buddy is a dog. (Premise) Therefore, Buddy is an animal. (Conclusion) An argument is inductively strong for a person if and only: 1. Requires deductive validity and reasonable premises 2. The strength of a valid argument is proportional to the reasonableness of the conjunction of all its premises 3. Strength can vary from person to person, depending on the evidence the people have

Answer 97

Arguments that are ill-formed but that can be made cogent or valid by the addition of a fairly obvious and simple premise, are known as incomplete arguments.

Answer 98

When reconstructing an argument, try to formulate a reconstruction that is well-formed, has premises that are reasonable/justifed/rational for the author/speaker, and in the case of inductive arguments that is not defeated/ In other words, make the arguement as strong as possible, and be consistent with what you upon careful consideration take to be the authors or speakers actual intentions. Dont: twist other peoples words for better or worse Do: Be far when you express somebody's position

Answer 99

Look for a conclusion (a statement being supported), and look for premises (the statements offering support) Ask yourself: Is the author trying to get me to believe something by giving me ressons in support of it? - If YES: it is probably an arguement - if NO: it is probably not an argument Arguments are different from descriptions Some contrasts: 1) Descriptve writing (newspaper article) 2) Rhetorical writing: This merely assents one or more conclusions without offering reasons

Answer 100

1) Try to ignore non-argumentative material (such as descriptive writing) 2) Remember that any proposition on any topic, expressed by any person at any time can be a conclusion 3) Ask yourself: what's the overall point of the (argumentative portion) of the text? That will likelly be the main conclusion Be careful with these common expressions: "My argument is that..." - not an arguement it is a conclusion no reasons provided "I would argue that.." - might be part of an argument, but by itself is not an argument 4) Remember that one text/speech may contain: - several independent arguements - Argument inside of another one (sub-argument) - Contain words that indicate a premise or a conclusion is coming 5) look for conclusion indicators such as: - thus -therefore - hence -entails -implies - it follows that 6) Remeber that conclusion indicators are not always present 7) Remeber that conclusions don't always come last in actual texts/speeches even though we put them last in standard form if you get a long paragraph WRITE down the conclusion + identify inductive or deductive 8) Sometimes conclusions aren't explicity stated at all - follow the principle of charity to determine the intentions 9) sometimes the conclusion that is explicitly stated is NOT the one that the author/speaker is really arguing for 10) Conclusions can be stated in very unclear or obscure ways. When reconstructing the argument in standard form, try to state the conclusions as clearly and simply as possible as long as it follows the principle of charity

Answer 101

1) try to ignore-argumentative material such as descriptive writing and rhetorical writing 2) Remember that any proposition on any topic, expressed by any person at any time can be a premise 3) ask yourself: what are the reasons or evidence being offered by the speaker these are liekly the premises 4) Remember that one text/speech may well contain: - several independent arguments - Sub arguments 5) Look for premise indicators such as: - since - because - given that - for the reason that 6) remember that premise-indicators are not always present 7) Remember that premises don't always come first in actual texts/speeches even though we put them first in standard form 8) sometimes premises are not explicly stated at all - sometimes they skip out on all their reasons - charity princple says its okay to add premises if its reasonable to think they may have intended to say that 9) sometimes a premise that is explicitly stated isn't the one the speaker/author really intends to use in their arguement 10) premises can be stated in very unclear or obscure ways. when reconstructing the argument in standard form, try to state the premises as clearly and simply as possible

Answer 102

Add implicit premises that are consistent with the intentions of the author of the arguement

Answer 103

When adding implcit premises add ones that are reasonable/justified/rational to believe rather than ones that are obviously false

Answer 104

A conclusion that is stated directly is known as a "explicit conclusion" A conclusion that is neglated to be stated at all is an "implicit conclusion" in other words: An explicit conclusion is a clear, direct statement of the main point or final idea in an argument. It’s straightforward and leaves no room for doubt about what the person is trying to say. For example: "Therefore, exercise improves mental health." An implicit conclusion, on the other hand, is suggested or implied but not directly stated. The speaker or writer expects the audience to pick up on the main idea based on the information given, even if it’s not spelled out. For example, if someone says, "People who exercise regularly report feeling less stressed and more focused," the implicit conclusion might be that exercise improves mental health, but they haven’t directly stated it.

Answer 105

An explicit premise is a clearly stated reason or idea that supports a conclusion. It’s right there in the argument for everyone to see. For example: "Exercise releases endorphins, which improve mood." Here, the premise is directly stated. An implicit premise, on the other hand, is not directly stated but is assumed to be true to make the argument work. The speaker expects the audience to fill in the missing idea. For example, if someone says, "Exercise improves mood," they might implicitly assume you already know that "endorphins improve mood." That unstated part is the implicit premise, even though it’s not directly said.

Answer 106

premises that state facts about specific individuals

Answer 107

Premises that state facts about general categories or kinds of individuals for example: Argument 5: 1. Ken B. Bribed is a poltician 2. All politicians are corrupt *3. Ken B. Bribed is corrupt The first premise is a specific statement, since it states a fact about a group or category or thing. The second premise is a generlaization since it states an alleged fact about a group, category, or thing. All As are Bs = Universal generlization Most As are Bs = Non-universal generalization many As are Bs = non-universal generlization Some As are Bs = non-universal generalization 'All licensed drivers are over 3 years old' - universal generalization

Answer 108

Quantifiers are words or phrases that show quantity or amount in a statement. They help indicate "how many" or "how much" of something is being talked about. Common examples include words like: "All" (meaning everything or everyone) "Some" (meaning part or a few) "Most" (meaning a majority) "None" (meaning not any) "A few," "several," and "many" (meaning varying amounts) For example, in the sentence, "Some students enjoy math," the word some is a quantifier because it tells us that only part of the group of students likes math, not all of them. Quantifiers help make statements more precise by showing the extent or degree being discussed.

Answer 109

A wide generalization is a statement that applies broadly to a group or situation, but it may allow for exceptions. Unlike a universal generalization, which claims something is true for everyone or everything, a wide generalization suggests that something is true for most cases, though not necessarily all. For example, saying, "People like warm weather" is a wide generalization because it suggests most people prefer warm weather, but it doesn’t mean everyone does. Wide generalizations are common in everyday conversation, but they can sometimes overlook individual differences.

Answer 110

A narrow generalization is a statement that applies to a small or specific part of a group rather than the whole group. It’s less broad than other types of generalizations and often includes specific details or conditions. For example, instead of saying, "People enjoy sports," a narrow generalization would be, "Teenagers in my neighborhood enjoy basketball." This statement only applies to a smaller group (teenagers in a specific area) and a specific activity (basketball). Narrow generalizations are often more accurate because they focus on particular subgroups or situations.

Answer 111

A premise that connects the stated premise to the conclusion

Answer 112

when adding a generlization as a implicit premise in an argument, add a true wide generalization rather than a false wide one

Answer 113

- It is always technically possible to to add a premise to make an argument valid - No matter how many premises theere are you can always add a premise to make any ridiculous argument valid. All you have to do is add a conditional saying that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. To do this is to resort to Cheap Validity Example 14: A fan of the maple leafs might argue "it rained yesterday' therefore, the maple leafs would win the cup in 2025 reconstructed argument: argument 14: 1. it rained yesterday 2. the maple leafs will win the cup in 2025 #1 has nothing to do with #2, it is invalid but we can add an implicit premise to make the arguement valid, this leads to: argument 14a 1. it rained yesterday 2. if it rained yesterday, then the leafs will win the cup 3. the maple leafs will will win the cup ^valid but very weak - affirming the antecedent only do this if it was a charitable interpretation feldman does not mean this is the recipe for making bad arguments into good arguments, he can claim that adding this connecting premise to any old premise at all and turn it into a valid argument. ONLY do this when reconstructing arguments if you are sure it is what the person would have wanted - only if its a charitable interpretation. Making an ill-formed argument valid, we have NOT made a bad argument a good one. Valid does NOT meam good, yes with the new premise that premise is not a reasonable thing to believe, no connection between pigs flying and passing critical thinking, not a bad argument made into a good one. Taken a argument that was bad in one way and added an implicit premise thats what the person wouldve intended. It's still a bad argument, still deductively weak not because of validity, but because the premise is not reasonable to believe.

Answer 114

Example: 'Jim studies regularly. Since most people who study hard will do well in school, it is likely that Jim will do well" First attempt: 1. Most people who study hard will do well in school. 2. Jim studies regularly *3. Jim will do well ^ Ill-formed - the chnaging of the words from (hard-regularly) makes the argument ill-formed studying hard might mean very intense, studying regualrly talks about the frequency; and frequency and intentsity are two different things. Always make sure to follow the principle of charity to make the argument as strong as possible, and consistent with what you know with consdieration to be the authors intentions sometimes the authors/speakers words alone dont give us enough information to choose the most appropriate reconstruction

Answer 115

If you leave out one or more premises, you misrepresent the argument and this can affect your evaluation of it. So if we dont have all the parts of an argument in front of us, then we cant probably evaluate it a) try your best to include all the premises explicitly given by the speaker eg; someome might give six reasons for a conclusion but including just say 4 of them might make the argument ill-formed or weak so you need to include all six b) try your best to include all the implicit premises that are intended by the author - where possible, re-word the explicit premises so that they can conform to one of our standard patterns - pay attention to the logical pattern/form of the argument c) always include parenthical justifications for conclusions and double-check them (# thr premises that support or backup the conclusion

Answer 116

a) dont include non argumentative (eg; descriptive writing or rhetorical writing) in the standard form argument if you include such material, you will wind up assessing irrlevent claims when you evaluate the argument b) A speaker may repeat a premise/conclusion but just put it in the standard form reconstruction once after all repeating something doesnt make it stronger just like saying something loudly does. not make it more plausible c) If you discover an unessarcy premise, either eliminate it or see if you can plausibly incorporate it into the argument, perhaps by adding an implicit premise to connect it. Go with the stronger reconstruction provided you reasonably think that best fits the speakers intent. If you find a premise that seems like it was intended by the author, you got 2 choices; you can either 1) cut it out and say it was not intended by the author or if you think it was intentional but it's not pulling any weight to the conclusion you can 2) create a premise that would bring it to the full interpretation

Answer 117

1. Improper wording 2. Missing Premises 3. Unnecessary Premises

Answer 118

An intermediate conclusion is a point in an argument that acts as both a conclusion and a reason. It’s a statement supported by earlier points in the argument, and it then helps support the final conclusion. For example: Studying every day improves understanding. (Intermediate Conclusion) Therefore, students who study every day will likely get better grades. (Final Conclusion) So, if you want better grades, you should study every day. Here, "students who study every day will likely get better grades" is an intermediate conclusion because it’s supported by the first statement and helps lead to the final conclusion.

Answer 119

compound argument is an argument that has two or more smaller arguments, or reasons, combined to support a main conclusion. Each part of the compound argument adds strength or support to the overall point. For example: Exercise improves physical health. Exercise also boosts mental health. Conclusion: Therefore, exercise is essential for overall well-being. Here, the two smaller arguments (exercise improving physical health and boosting mental health) work together to support the main conclusion about exercise and well-being.

Answer 120

ndirect justification is when you support a conclusion by showing that an opposing idea is incorrect or unlikely. Instead of directly proving something, you argue against the alternative to make your point stronger. For example: The road is dry. (Indirect Justification) If it had rained, the road would be wet. Conclusion: Therefore, it probably did not rain. Here, instead of directly proving it didn’t rain, the argument shows why the idea of rain (and a wet road) doesn’t fit, indirectly supporting the conclusion that it didn’t rain.

Answer 121

1) Do NOT criticize an argument by (MERELY) denying its conclusion 2) Do NOT accept an argument simply because you believe the conclusion 3) Direct your criticisms at individual premises (or infrences) 4) Make your criticism of premises substantial (make sure your criticism has substance) 5) Do NOT accept the conclusions of 2 competing arguments 6) Do NOT (merely) object to intermediate conclusions of compound arguments

Answer 122

You should be give reasons! and be sure to watch out for discomformation biases a) if the argument is ill-formed: point out that the premises do not support the conclusion ( even if the premises were true they do not make the conclusion guarnteed or probable) b) if the argument is valid: focus on whether the premises are r/j/r to believe. Remember deductively valid does not mean strong c) if the argument is cogent: then you should focus on both of these things: i) whether the pre ises are r/j/r to believe ii) whether the argument is defeated

Answer 123

just because you like the conclusion you should not skip the steps of evaluating it fairly Watch out for conformation bias. Accepting an argument because we already believe it supports our beliefs Recall that there can be weak arguments for true conclusion eg: 1. All university professors are male 2.Kraary is a university prof 3. Kraay is male (from 1,2 by universal modus ponens) ^valid argument but not a strong one because the first premise is not reasonable to believe based on evidence - remember that a conclusion can be r/j/r to believe based on one good argument

Answer 124

Trying to criticize an argument, target you criticims at a specific premise or individual part of the argument (inferences) if you think theres a premise that is unreasonable to believe then say it and give reasons where possible, criticisms should focus on: a) individual premises - as not r/j/r to believe because either you have good reason to think the premise is false or you have good reason to suspend judgement about it b) indivudal inferences - as either invalid or non-cogent

Answer 125

make sure your criticsms have substance A substantial criticism of a premise gives reasons to think the premise is not r/j/r to believe because either you have good reasons to think the premise is false or you have good reason to suspend judgement about it examples of insubstantial criticisms of a premise: a) "maybe the premise is false" or "possibly the premise is false" b) "that premise hasnt been proven" c) Using argument stoppers like: "thats just your opinion" "Whos to say if thats true" *reminder opinions on their own are rationally worthless - these are not good enough reasons if we are criticizing somones argument. Try to be ambitious or robust

Answer 126

Suppose that an argument aims to support a conclusion A competing arguement is one that aims to support the negation of this conclusion (not-c) premise x premise p premise y premise q * C * not C - you cannot rationally think these are equally strong If you think both are equally strong it is a contradiction either #1 or #2 (one-truth value principle) you cannot at the same time think both arguments are (equally strong while being rational) (2 arguments cannot be equally strong for you) if you believe that 2 arguments are somehow equally strong for you must suspend judgement about the merit of both arguments 2 competing arguments cant be both equally strong for you at a gien time, but they can be both weak

Answer 127

recall that a compound argument is one that contains sub-arguments sub-conclusions should not be rejected without reason always on the basis of reason look at premises that are being offered in support 1. the maid was out of the country at the time of the murder 2. if the maid was out of the country at the time of the murder she didnt commit the murder *3 the maid didnt commit the murder (from 1,2 by modus ponens) 4. either the maid or the butler commited the murder 5. the butler committed the murder (from 3,4 by arg by elim) recall also that (3) plays two roles is the conclusion of a sub-argument and a premise in the main arguement in such cases you shouldnt just criticize (3) you shuld criticize the reasons offered for (3) or the inference leading to (3)

Answer 128

based on the total availbale evidence you have at a given time, you should either believe, disbelieve, or suspend judgement about such claims whatever is most apporotiate recall our rule of thumb; the higher the stakes the more evidence we require for believing a premise

Answer 129

Generalization premises are statements that make broad claims or conclusions based on a few examples or observations. They often start from a specific case and extend to a wider group or situation. For example, if you observe that two dogs you know are friendly and conclude that all dogs are friendly, you're using a generalization premise. It's like saying, "Because I've seen this happen a couple of times, it must be true in general." While generalizations can sometimes be useful, they can also be risky if the examples aren't representative of the whole group. If you see a couple of cats that are very playful and friendly, you might make a generalization and say, "All cats are playful and friendly." In this case, you've observed a few specific examples and drawn a broad conclusion about all cats based on those examples. However, not all cats are necessarily playful and friendly—some might be shy or reserved. Generalization can be useful, but it's important to remember that they may not always be accurate.

Answer 130

conjunction (A & B) for a conjunction both parts need to be true evaluate both of the conjuncts seperately, both of them must be true for the conjunction as a whole to be true if either conjunct is false, the whole conjunction is false Disjunctions ("A or B") inclusive interpretation: "A or B or both" Exclusive interpretation: "A or B but not both" on the inclusive interpretation, only ine disjunct has to be true for a disjunction as a whole to be true if both disjuncts are false, the whole disjunction is false

Answer 131

Exhaustive: This means that everything is included, and nothing is left out. It's like having a list where every single possibility or item is covered. Example: If you're making an exhaustive list of fruits, it would include apples, oranges, bananas, strawberries, and every other fruit you can think of. There's nothing missing. Non-exhaustive: This means that not everything is included; some things might be left out. It's like having a list that covers some items but not all possible ones. Example: If you're making a non-exhaustive list of fruits, it might include apples, oranges, and bananas, but not strawberries or other fruits. It's just a partial list. **THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE 3RD OPTION To test wether an alternative is exhaustive ask "are these all the possible options"

Answer 132

Exclusive: one of these but not both. ex: A or B Non-Exclusive: A or B or Both exclusive argument could be: "You can either have coffee or tea, but you can't have both at the same time." This clearly sets a boundary that you must choose one and not the other. On the other hand, non-exclusive allows for the possibility of both options being true or acceptable. For example, "You can have both coffee and tea, depending on your preference or the situation." In summary, exclusive means "one or the other, but not both," while non-exclusive means "one or the other, or both." to test wether an alternative is exclusive ask: "do these options rule each other out?"

Answer 133

pregnant or not pregnant

Answer 134

youll either get A or C

Answer 135

a list of all tmu degrees

Answer 136

sandwich or soup for lunch

Answer 137

occurs when the premises claim or assume that a choice between two alternatives is exhaustive or exclusive or both when the choice is not in other words when someone suggets you have fewer options than you have "youre either for us or youre agaisnt us" "youre either a teacher or a student" premises such as these are not r/j/r to believe

Answer 138

1. the maid was out of the country at the time of the murder *2. the maid didnt commit the murder (from 1) 3. Either the maid or the butler commited the murder *4. the butler committed the murder (from #2, 3) (argument by eliminating) main argument is #2, 3 #1, 2 is the sub argument, maid out of the country offered as a reason for suppporting the claim that she didnt do it crucial points: - claim #2 is 'wearing 2 hats' (has 2 jobs) it is the conclusion of the subargument and its a premise in the main argument - #1 and #2 together are a subargument - 2, 3 and 4 together are the main argument - 2 is a intermediate conclusion

Answer 139

1. TMU is right on the subway line *2 TMU Has a convenient location (from 1) 3. TMU has attractive programs 4. TMU has friendly professors *5. TMU is a great university (from 2, 3 and 4) the sub-argument is #1,2 #1 does not support #5 it is there to support #2 #2,3,4 are there to support #5 in this reconstruction we notice that: - #2 is playing two roles its a conclsuion of a subargument and its a premise in the main argument - #1 and #2 together are a subargument - 2 - 5 are the main arguement we could add 2 implicit premise to make the subarguement and main argument valid 1. TMU is located right on the subway line 2. If TMU is located right on the subway line, then it has a convenient location (implicit) *3 If TMU has a convenient location (from 1,2 modus ponens) 4. TMU has attractive programs 5. TMU has friendly profs 6. If tmu has attractive programs, has a convenient location, and friendly profs then it is a great university (implicit premise) *7. TMU is a great university (from 3,4,5,6)

Answer 140

only add them when the principle of charity allows it (make the arguement as strong as possible, be close to what you think the writer intended) always label them as implicit premises in ur reoconstructions

Answer 141

A necessary condition is something that must be true or present for another thing to happen. Without it, the event or situation cannot occur. However, having it doesn't guarantee the event will happen. Example: To graduate, you must pass all your courses. Passing your courses is a necessary condition for graduating, but passing them doesn't automatically mean you will graduate (there might be other requirements, like paying fees).

Answer 142

A sufficient condition is something that, if true or present, guarantees the event or situation will happen. However, it doesn't mean it's the only way for the event to occur. Example: If you get 100% on every assignment, you will pass the course. Getting 100% is a sufficient condition for passing, but it's not necessary—you could also pass with lower grades.

Answer 143

Sometimes, a condition can be both necessary and sufficient. This means the event cannot happen without it, and having it guarantees the event. Example: Being unmarried is both a necessary and sufficient condition for being a bachelor. If you're not unmarried, you're not a bachelor (necessary). If you are unmarried, you are a bachelor (sufficient). In summary: Necessary = Must have, but not enough by itself. Sufficient = Enough by itself, but not always required. Remember not all conditions are necessary or suffcient for each other ex; Being a TMU student - being a sociology student - not necessary to be a TMU student to be a sociology student - being in tmu is not necessarry for being a sociology student because other programs - being sociology student doesnt guarantee being a TMU student, doesnt gurantee you go to TMU

Answer 144

broad means an idea or statement that is general, wide in scope, or not specific enough. A broad argument or claim covers a large area and often lacks details or precision. Example: Broad claim: "Technology is bad for society." This is very general and doesn’t explain which technology, what part of society, or why it’s bad. More specific claim: "Social media negatively impacts teenagers' mental health by increasing anxiety and depression." This is less broad because it focuses on a specific type of technology (social media), a group (teenagers), and a specific problem (mental health issues).

Answer 145

1. Reportive/Descriptive (trying to see how people use words, sometimes, new words get added oxford dictionary) 2. Normative (how people should use words) - general: "marriage" - what is the definition of marriage how you answer has major implications how precisie we need to be about defenitions depends on the context; the higher the stakes the more precision is needed

Answer 146

a definition is too narrow if it excludes things that it should not (eg marriage def too narrow) eg; a student is someone enrolled at university (could be high school, etc rules out things it should not) ^ too narrow because it excludes for example high school students - being enrolled at university is not a necessary condition for being a student its sufficient

Answer 147

a definition is too broad if it includes things that it shouod not eg; a computer screen is an electronic device with a screen - too broad since it includes TVs, GPS, etc neither being an electronic device nor having a screen are sufficient conditions

Answer 148

A counterexmaple is an example either real or fictional that shows that a defenition is too broad or narrow ex; dog: a four legged mammal with a heart (other animals could meet this description too broad) triangle; a three-sided figure containing a 90 degree angle (too narrow bc there is triangles that dont have 90 degrees) *NOTE a proposed def could be both too broad and too narrow in different respects

Answer 149

a word or phrase is ambiguous when it has more than one meaning (eg; bank)

Answer 150

a word or phrase is vague when there is no precise cut-off point between when it applies and when it doesnt (eg; bald, rich, tall, heap, sleepy) - heap; how many grains of sand for a heap - rich; how much do you need to be considered 'rich'? - bald; how much hair on your head to be considered bald? - sleepy; how tired to be sleepy

Answer 151

when an ambigious word or expression is used in two different senses in an argument..but the arguement appears to suggest otherwise simply in order to get to its conclusion 1. man is the only rational creature 2. no woman is a man *3 no woman is a rational creature (from 1,2) ^^bad because it is used different in each premise. The problem is that in the 1st premise 'man' refers to humans. and in the 2nd premise man becomes a claim about gender Argument in Standard Form: 1. Nothing is better than a good meal. 2. Eating nothing is better than a good meal. 3. Therefore, you should eat nothing. Why it's a problem: The word "nothing" is used in two different ways: In premise 1, "nothing" means "no other thing." In premise 2, "nothing" means "not eating anything." This shift in meaning makes the argument invalid.

Answer 152

This occurs when an argument claims or assumes that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to further, undesirable step or steps. "If we let one student hand in their assignment late, soon everyone will start turning in assignments late. Eventually, there will be no deadlines, and the whole education system will collapse."

Answer 153

when an argument concludes something about a group or set on the bass of an inadequte sample size "all the cafeteria food is terrible. I had a burger there once and it made me sick" "I met two people from City X, and they were both rude. Everyone from City X must be rude." Why It's a Fallacy: This argument draws a broad conclusion about all people from City X based on a very small and unrepresentative sample. reasonable to believe premises, unreasonable inference

Answer 154

attempt[ting to prove a conclusion by using that same conclusion as a premise (sometimes the conclusion is worded differently from when it is used as a premise and sometimes it is implcit 'god exists we know that god exists because the bible says so and we know that god wrote the bible' Argument: Smoking is bad for your health because it is harmful. Therefore, smoking is unhealthy. Why It's a Fallacy: The argument simply restates the claim ("smoking is bad for your health") in different words ("it is harmful") without providing any real evidence or reasoning. It assumes what it’s trying to prove.

Answer 155

- arguing or assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole - what is true of the parts is not true of the whole "each part of this new aircraft weighs less than 5 pounds; therefore the whole aircraft weighs less than 5 pounds" - not true obv This fallacy happens when someone assumes that what is true for the parts of something must also be true for the whole. "Each player on the basketball team is excellent, so the team as a whole must be excellent." Why It's a Fallacy: Just because each player is good individually doesn't mean the team will perform well together. The success of the team depends on more than just individual skills, like teamwork and strategy.

Answer 156

a recognizied mistake in reasoning

Answer 157

- arguing that what is true of the whole must be equally true of the parts - This fallacy happens when someone assumes that what is true for the whole must also be true for each of its parts. "The school is very prestigious, so every student at the school must be brilliant."

Answer 158

arguing that a claim must be true or r/j/r simply because it is a popular belief 'of course the war is illegal! after all everybody thinks so" "Everyone I know says this diet works, so it must be the best way to lose weight."

Answer 159

This fallacy happens when someone argues that something is acceptable or right just because it’s commonly done by others. arguing that something should be done/not done in a certian way simply bevause it is commonly done/not done that way "nobody has op quizzes at university.so there shouldnt be any pop quizzes

Answer 160

arguining that a claim must be true simply because it is part of tradition just because a belief is traditional does not guarantee that it is r/j/r or true "We shouldn’t allow women to join this club because it has always been a men-only club."

Answer 161

This fallacy happens when someone claims something is true (or false) because there’s no evidence to prove it false (or true). It relies on a lack of evidence rather than actual proof. no one has shown that ghosts are real so they must not exist

Answer 162

rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than focusing on whether the claim itself is true or r/j/r "smith says the bus leaves at 10:00, but hes a coward so he must be wrong" this commites the fallacy bc it attacks smith rather than the arguemnt or its merits. the features about smith are irrelevent to what he is saying a) Character - merely attacking a persons character instead of focusing on whether thier claim is true or false or r/j/r (ex; calling smith a coward when talkimg about the bus) b) circumstantial - focusing on a persons circumstances instead of whether or not their claim is true or r/j/r 'jose says the political system in cuba is perfect, but he has to say so! hes a card carrying communist so you should not believe what he says about politics - bad argument focus on the arguemnt not the person the main point is that most of the time claims about a persons charcter or circumstances are irrelevant to whether the conclusion is tue or false. attack the argument not the person

Answer 163

This fallacy happens when someone responds to criticism by accusing the other person of being guilty of the same thing, instead of addressing the issue at hand. It avoids the argument by pointing fingers. merely pointing out that the same claim is inconsistent with something else the speaker/author says or does instead of focusing on whether thier claim is true or r/j/r 'amina wears expensive designer clothing, so everything she says about excessive consumerrism is nonsense" ^^attacking author instead of the arguent or issue at hand - maybe amina is a hypocrite but that should not affect the argument Person A: "You shouldn’t smoke; it’s bad for your health." Person B: "Why should I listen to you? You smoke too!"