Test #1, #2, #3 Flashcards
What is an Argument and its purpose?
An Argument, is a set of statements, where one of them (the conclusion) is meant to be supported by the remaiming statements (the premises)
points and reasons provided are intended to establish and from arguments
What is a Premise?
It’s a statement (reasons and support) that is offered in support of a conclusion
ex: “why tmu is a great school - and the reasons that follow are premises”
premises are attempting to support conclusion
the reasons that are supposed to support the conclusion are the premises of the argument
What is a conclusion?
A conclusion is a statement that is held to be supported by one or more premsises
the claim the arguments are intending to make is it’s conclusion
premise: all universities are great places to learn
premise: TMU is a university
conclusion: TMU is a great place to learn
What is an assertion?
An assertion is something that is IS or IS NOT the case
simply when you have a true or false statement
Assertions are declarative sentences used to convey a
point/message of an argument.
Examples:
“Today is Friday”
“it is not raining”
“she will win the race”
What is a proposition?
The specific thought or idea that the statement expresses
Propositions are the ideas behind a statement, or the thought that said statement represents.
Propositions can be expressed
through different statements but still convey the same meaning, for example, language– “It’s
snowing” has the same meaning as “Il neige” (French)
It is possible for the same statement to express different propositions depending on who states it, and when and where etc (the context)
At the same time, the same words can express a different
proposition. For example, “There’s a bank on the left”, is it a money bank, or a fishing bank, also who’s left?
What are the 2 main points that makeup an argument?
the 2 main pieces of your argument,
these being the Premises and the Conclusion. When working with an argument we must give
the reader a logical reason to believe our proposition, this is done through Premises.
Premises are statements that are offered in support of the argument’s conclusion.
In simple
terms, this is the evidence that backs the claim we are trying to make, for example, you’re
trying to explain to your friend why Burger Legend has the best chicken sandwiches around:
“Yeah man, I love burger legend because….”. In this example, any reasoning we use
in support of our claim is the premise of our argument.
The Conclusion is what our
aforementioned premises are supporting. Using the same example, our conclusion/point
we’re trying to make would be the fact that Burger Legend is the best burger place in town.
The Conclusion is the main point, while the premise supports it.
What is an infrence?
It is the mental step of accepting the conclusion on basis of reasons/evidence
an infrence is a process of reasoning from a premise or premises to a conclusion, based on those premises
example: lawyer asking the jury to make an infrence
poor infrence is making a conclusion based on lack of evidence
What are the 3 steps of argument analysis? and explain each step
Step 0 - Figure out if it is really an argument or not
- Not all texts or passages contain arguements
a) some texts are just descriptive (eg; a newspaper story of a car acident, a description of a thing) these are NOT arguments
b) some texts just are there to offer an authors opinion, without trying to provide reasons to accept it. these are NOT arguements
- opnion by itself is not an argument
- if an opinion is not supported by reasons it is rationally worthless
c) an “if-then” statement by itself, is not an arguement
- “if it is raining, then the party will be cancelled” - this is not an arguement no supporting evidence, no premise just a statement
step 1 - reconstruct the arguement
- arguments are not always presented or written in the clearest way.
- figure out how to identify and clearly display the underlying logical structure of an argument
- process of interpreting and clarifying an arguement is reconstructing
- example: polititan making a speech, the arguement is hidden within
step 2 - evaluate the argument
- Thinking if an arguement is good or not
- this is NOT evaluating literary merit or rhetorical power
- use literary merit, rhetorical power, and rational strength to evaluate arguement
What are the 3 tools for having a strong arguement?
- Literary Merit
- Rhetorical Power
- Rational Strength
Explain Literary merit
a passage has literary merit when it is well-written. orginal, and interesting
Explain Rheotical power
an arguement has rhtorical power when it is has a tendency to convince or prsuade
Explain rational strength
An arguemnt has rational strength when the premises provide good reasons to think that the conclusion is true
This tool uses our human rationale, things like “Hitting people is bad because
of….” the conclusion that hitting people is bad usually clicks in our head, because yeah, assault is bad
What is Critical Thinking?
Critical Thinking is a system for analysis of arguments
via a rational standard”.
- it is systematic because it involves sistinct procedures and methods (no gut feelings)
- it is used to analyze existing arguments of other people and your own and to formulate new ones of your own
- It’s basically the evaluation of
arguments based on how well their premises support their conclusions.
Why should we think critcally?
- Because we really do care about the truth; about gettig things right and about gaining knowledge; about avoiding false beliefs etc
Our beliefs affect our efforts and how our lives
unfold, beliefs shape who we are and by critically thinking we can “optimise” how we’re shaped in a
way.
What is knowledge?
- knowledge by acquintance - opprtunity cost
- knowledge how
- propositional knowldege
Knowledge, This is simply the belief that something is true and supported by good reason
Knowledge is the understanding or awareness of something that is true. It involves having justified beliefs about facts or concepts. To “know” something typically means:
Belief: You believe it.
Truth: What you believe is actually true.
Justification: You have good reasons or evidence to believe it.
What is the 3 Key Ingrediants for knowledge? explain each one
- BELIEF - To think something is true (ex: believing in god)
- belief is compatible for knowledge and required
- believing = knowing something & knowing = believing something
- to truly be knowledgeable about something we must actually believe it’s true
- TRUTH - For something to be true
- if something is or is not the case in reality.
- not everything is known
- if it is known by you then it is true
- ex; (2 + 2 = 4)
- Objective truth - where it isnt based on perception it’s just true (mostly in science based topics)
- JUSTIFICIATION - Good reason to believe that the claim being stated is true
- Plato agreed that true belief was not knowledge
- truth and beliefs are not always there for good reason
- Believe stuff for GOOD reasons
- ex; go train leaving at 4:15 you believe it leaves at 4:15 but that is not a good reason for belief
What are the 4 different views on truth?
- Realism
- Nihilism
- Relativism
- Philosophical Skeptic
What is Realism?
Realists believe that there is TRUTH in some subject area (ex: math, morality, religion)
- It involves TWO claims:
i) There are truths in that subject area AND -
ii) What these truths are does NOT depend upon anyones beliefs about them in other words (objective)
In other words, something is true if it matches the way things actually are, even if no one believes it or knows it yet. For example, if a tree exists in a forest, it’s real whether or not anyone is there to see it.
What is Nihilism?
Nihilits believe that there is NO TRUTHS about anything
i) there just are no truths in any certain field, or area of topic
In short, nihilism denies that there are any absolute truths or higher purposes to life.
What is Moral Nihilism
the view that moral statements have NO truth-value, they are neither true nor false
Moral nihilism is the belief that there are no objective moral truths—no actions are inherently right or wrong. According to moral nihilism, ideas of “good” or “bad” are just human-made concepts, and there’s no universal moral standard that applies to everyone.
In short, moral nihilists think that morality is meaningless or subjective, and nothing is truly right or wrong on its own.
What is some pros and cons to realism?
The main drawback to realism is that it is implausible; does not work well in some areas (humour, beauty) relativism would be more plausible
Pros of Realism:
- Grounded in facts: Realism is based on the idea that truth exists independently of our beliefs, which encourages evidence-based thinking and objectivity.
- Reliable view of the world: It helps us understand the world as it really is, which can be useful for science and everyday life.
- Consistency: Since realism believes in an objective reality, it promotes stability and consistency in how we view and interact with the world.
Cons of Realism:
- Overlooks personal experiences: Realism focuses on external truths and may ignore how individuals experience the world differently, which can be limiting in areas like art, culture, or subjective experience.
- Rigid thinking: It can lead to a rigid view of the world, not allowing for flexibility or different interpretations of reality.
- Difficulty in moral issues: Realism struggles to account for subjective areas like morality, emotions, and personal values, where objective truths might not be clear.
We should be realists only in certain fields such as:
- Science
- History
We should not be realists in areas such as:
- Morality
- Art & Literature
- Personal Beliefs & Values
What is some pros and cons of Nihilism?
Pros:
- freedom from societal expectations
Cons:
- Self Defeating/Contradictory - deny’s and claims no truth of everything but finds truth and believes in Nihilism)
What is Relativism?
Relativists agree that there is truth in some domains
i) there are truths in the subject area but -
ii) what the truths are depends upon (relative to) what we (for someone) believes them to be
this is by far the most common way of thinking. A
prime example of this is religion, some people believe that it has truth while some don’t.
there are 2 types of relativism -
- Subjective
- “that’s true for me”
“thats my truth”
Subjective is based on an individual person’s beliefs,
for example the belief that stealing from large enough companies is okay, or lying is good in certain
circumstances (stuff like morals and ethics).
-social
“thats true for us”
“thats our truth”
Social Relativism is based on the thoughts of a
community/society (similar topics)
For example, what one culture thinks is morally right might be seen as wrong in another culture, and relativism says both perspectives can be valid.
In short, relativism means that truth and values are flexible and change depending on different viewpoints or contexts.
What is the pros and cons of relativism?
Pros:
- Makes it easier to co-exist
- Flexibilty
Cons:
- Implausible - implies that people can’t be wrong about anything
- Easy to contradict yourself
What is Philosophical Skepticism?
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
why do people hold the view of philosophical skepticism?
- Dream Hypothesis
- Evil Genius Hypothesis
Explain the dream hypothesis
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”
Explain the Evil Genius hypotheis
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.
Explain the cohernce model of truth, and it’s drawback
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.
What is Issac Watts 4 types of argument respondents
- Contradiction person
- Dogmatist
- Skeptic
- credulos person
Explain the Credulos Person
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
explain the contradiction person
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
explain the dogmatist
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.
Explain the “issac watt” skeptic
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.
Explain what an Arguement stopper is
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)
Explain the One truth value theory
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.
what are the drawbacks of skepticism?
- requiring absolute certainty for a belief to count as knowledge seems to be asking too much
- skepticism about everything is self-defeating.
Explain Belief
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
Explain the rational thinker
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
What are the 5 things that get in the way of argument analysis
- Inadequate Vocabulary
- Fear of tolerence & open minded roles
- Misunderstanding the point of argument analysis
- misconceptions about truth and reality
- reliance on argument stoppers
Explain what an Interrogative sentance is
To ask questions we use interrogative sentences such as:
- Whatb time is it?
- Did you feed the dog?
Explain what a imperative sentence is?
To give commands we use imperative sentences
- Tell me the time!
- Feed the dog!
Explain what a declarative sentence is
To describe things, we use declarative sentences
- Some gardeners do not use pesticides
- I fed the dog
- Nixon resigned from president in 1974
DECLARATIVE SENTENCES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS THE ONES WE USE FOR ARGUMENTS
Explain the truth and correspndence to the facts “Basic Idea”
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”.
Explain the correspondence principle
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
Explain the mistaken objection
-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.
Explain improving upon the basic idea
- 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:
- A distinction between sentence tokens and sentence types
- sometimes two sentence tokens of the same type are used to express the very same thought or idea
explain what a sentence token is
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.
What is a sentence type
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.
What are the 3 main types of cognitive attitudes you can take towards a proposition?
- Belief
- Disbelief
- Suspension Of Judgement
Explain Belief and Truth
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
Explain Belief and Disagreement
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
Explain to believe and disbelieve a proposition
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
What is the standard form of arguements?
listing each premise on a separate numbered line
- First premise
- second premise
- ## Third premise*4. Conclusion
What are the 4 main reasons for using the standard form?
- Writing in standard form helps you avoid including steps in the argument
- Sometimes people don’t bother to write down all of their assumptions, and reasons in arguments
- People often state their premises and conclusions in obscure, misleading, or imprecise ways
- When argument’s are written in standard form, you can easily refer to the premises and conclusion
Explain argument analysis
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
What are the 2 main steps of argument analysis
Arguement Analysis can be brocken down into two Main steps:
- Reconstructing the arguement - process of taking a prose passage and rewriting the arguement it contains in Standard form.
- Evaluating the arguement - you decide whether the arguement Outlined during the first Stage is a good arguement
Explain a well-formed argument
Any argument whose concusion does follow from its premises is a Well formed arguement.
There are 2 kinds of well-formed arguments
What are the two kinds of Well-formed arguments
- Deductively Valid - impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This is known as a simply valid argument
- Inductively Cogent - Premises merely make the conclusion probable. This is simply known as a cogent argument
Explain validity simply
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
For the following example state:
- the conclusion
- the validity of the argument
- explain why
- Bob is a student at TMU
- All Students at TMU Voted
—————————————- - ?
*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
Why should you not sneak in additional information that connects premises to the conclusion even if the info is obvious?
Use the following example to explain this:
Argument 5:
- 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:
- Pluto is a planet
- 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
Explain Patterns of arguments
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
- 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:
- Either My son is on the phone or My wife is
- 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
Explain Predicate logic
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.
Explain the principle of proportional belief
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)
Explain Fallibilism
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
Explain the differences in evidence/changes in evidence
- 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
- 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
How much evidence is needed for a belief to be R/J/R?
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
Explain some of the ways that beliefs can be Irrational, Unjustified, Unreasonable (I/U/U)
(A & B) (4 reasons for it)
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
- 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
Explain the Truth and rational strength of arguments
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:
- TMU is located in Guelph, ON
- ## 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
What are some advantages of using standard form?
- 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
What are the 2 kinds of arguments?
- Deductive
- Inductive
What is a deductive argument
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
Explain Deductive Validity
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
- All bachelors are unmarried
- ## 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
Give an example of an Invalid argument + explain what an invalid argument is
An invalid argument:
- Some politicians are crooks
- ## 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
How to test whether an argument is valid or not
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:
- All olympic athletes are ten-feet tall (false)
- ## 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
Give examples of valid arguments that follow the following formats:
- False Premises, False Conclusions
- False Premises, True Conclusions
- True Premises, True Conclusion
False Premises, False Conclusions
- All Human beings can fly
- ## All things that can fly are red*3. All human beings are red
False Premises, True Conclusions
- All dogs are reptiles
- ## All reptiles are mammals*3. All dogs are mammals
True premises, true conclusion
- If you’re taller than 10ft, you’re taller than 5ft
- ## 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.
What are the 5 sentential connectives?
- Conjunction
- Disjunction
- Negation
- Conditional
- Biconditional
Explain Conjunctions
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
Explain Disjunctions
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
Explain Negation
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)
Explain Conditional
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
Explain the point about “If” vs “Only if”
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
Explain Biconditionals
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
Explain Argument by elimination
- P or Q
- ## ∼P*3. Q
- P or Q
- ## ∼Q*3. P
INVALID PATTERNS:
- P or Q
- ## P*3. Q
- P or Q
- ## Q*3. P
**These have NO correlation, the conclusion does NOT follow so therefore it’s NOT valid.
- P v Q
- ## P*3. ∼Q
- P v Q
- ## Q*3. ∼P
- Either Lefty or Righty committed the crime
- ## Lefty Committed the crime*3. Righty didn’t commit the crime
^^ This does NOT follow, could have worked together (lefty, and righty)
Explain Simplification Pattern
- ## P & Q*2. P
- ## P & Q*2. Q
Explain Affirming the Antecedent (Modus Ponens)
- If P then Q
- ## P*3. Q
Any sentence that follows this structure will always be a valid argument
- Being a teenager means you have problems
- ## You are a teen*3. You have problems
- If TMU is a great school then many students apply
- ## TMU is a great school*3. Many students apply there
Explain Denying the Consequent (Modus Tollens)
- If P, then Q
- ## ∼ Q*3. ∼P
ex:
- If jim committed the murder, he used his gun on tuesday
- ## Jim did not use his gun on tuesday*3. Jim did not commit the murder
Explain why Denying the Antecedent is invalid
- If P then Q
- ## ∼ P*3. ∼ Q
Ex:
- If einstein invented the computer then he’s a genius
- ## 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
Explain why Affirming the Consequent in invalid
- If P then Q
- ## Q*3. P
Ex:
- If einstein invented the computer, then he’s a genius
- ## 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
Explain Hypothetical Syllogism
- If P, then Q
- ## If Q then R*3. If P, then R
Example:
- If Donald Trump loses the election(P), Kamala Harris wins the election(Q)
- ## 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
- If A, then B
- ## If C then B*3. If A, then C
- If B, then A
- ## If B, then C*3. If A, then C
Explain Contraposition
- ## If P, then Q*2. If ∼Q, then ∼P
^^ VALID
Example:
- ## 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
Explain Universal Modus Ponens (Affirming the antecedent)
- All As are Bs
- ## 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:
- All students(As) are hard-working(Bs)
- ## Omar(x) is a student(A)*3. Omar(x) is hard-working(Bs)
^^Valid
Explain Universal Modus Tollens (Affirming the consequent)
- All As are Bs
- ## x Is not a B*3. x is not an A
Example:
- All students(A) are hard-working(B)
- ## Omar(x) is not hard-working(B)*3. Omar(x) is not a student(A)
^^Valid
Explain Universal Ruling Out
- No As are Bs
- ## x is an A*3. x is not a B
Example:
- No children(A) are perfectly behaved at all times(B)
- ## Jacob is a child*3. Jacob is not perfectly behaved at all times
^^Valid
What is a inductive argument?
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
What is Cogency?
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
Explain/Give examples of cogent arguments
- Quitting smoking tends to improve one’s health
- ## Mary has quit smokingTherefore 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)
Explain/Give examples of non-cogent arguments
- A few police officers are corrupt
- ## Jim is a police officerTherefore 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)
- Most chairs have 10 legs (false)
- ## 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
Explain the cogency test
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
What are the common patterns of cogent arguments
- Most As are Bs
- ## x is an A*3. x is a B
- Most professors(A) have PhDs(B)
- ## 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
- X is an A
- X is a B
- ## Most ABs are Cs*4. x is a C
- Kraay is right-handed
- Kraay is a professor
- ## 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
What the common patterns of Non-Cogent arguments
- Most As are Bs
- ## x is not an A*3. x is not a B
- Most professors have PhDs
- ## Zola is not a professor*3. Zola does not have a PhD
prove that premises do not make conclusion likely = non cogent
COGENT:
- Most As are Bs
- ## x is a B*3. x is an A
- Most professors have PhDs
- ## Zola has a PhD*3. Zola is a professor
What do you call an argument that are invalid and non-cogent?
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:
- Today is Tuesday
- Monkeys like bananas
^Bad argument it is ill-formed
What kind of arguments fall under Deductive arguments
Invalid or Valid arguments
What kind of arguments fall under Inductive arguments
cogent or non-cogent
What is deductive strength
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:
- Toronto is located within Ontario
- ## 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
Explain how deductive strength can be weak (for a person at a time) in 3 ways
- Invalid
- Not rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe one or more of the arguments
- Both 1 + 2
ex: chicken noodle soup
- need chicken
- need noodles
without one or both you do not have soup
Can a valid argument be strong? weak?
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:
- If you’re a musician, you must be talented
- ## 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
Why can an argument be deductively strong for one person, but not for another?
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
An argument can be deductively strong for a given person at one time but not at another time why?
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
What are the two ways which it can fail to be rational/justified/reasonable for a person at a time to believe that a premise is true
If you have no evidence at all that bears on a claim, you shouldn’t believe the claim is true
- The available evidence makes it r/j/r to believe that it’s false
- 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
What is Inductive strength
An argument is inductively strong (for a person at a time if and only if it is)
- Cogent and -
- R/J/R for the person to believe that all of the arguments premises are true based on the available evidence and -
- The argument is not defeated by the person’s total evidence
EX;
- Most university professors are older than 50
- ## Kraay is a university professor*3. Kraay is older than 50
^Cogent because there is good reasons to believe the premises
How can you tell if an argument is sentential logic or predicate logic?
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
List the 11 valid argument patterns:
- Argument by elimination
- Conjunction
- Simplification
- Affirming the antecedent (modus ponens)
- Denying the consequent (Modus Tollens)
- Hypothetical Syllogism
- Contraposition
- Universal Modus Ponens
- Universal Modus Tollens
- Universal Hypothetical syllogism
- Universal Ruling out
What are 2 invalid argument patterns, and some additional invalid patterns
- Denying the antecedent
- Affirming the consequent
INVALID -
- P or Q
- ## P*3. Q
- P v Q
- ## P*3. not Q
- P v Q
- ## Q*3. Not P
What is modus ponens
affirming the antecedent
What is modus tollens
denying the consequent
What is some patterns of cogent arguments?
- Most As are Bs
- x is an A
- x is a B
Example:
- Most americans watch the superbowl
- Bob is an american
- Bob watches the superbowl
** Another one **
- x is an A
- x is an B
- Most ABs are Cs
- x is a C
Example:
- Tiger is healthy
- Tiger is a cat
- Most healthy cats like to chase mice
- Tiger likes to chase mice
What are some patterns of Ill-Formed arguments?
- Most As are Bs
- x is not an A
- x is not a B
Example:
- Most americans have never gone to the moon
- The queen of england is not an american
- the queen of england has (not never) gone to the moon
** Another one **
- Most As are Bs
- x is a B
- x is an A
Example:
- Most robins can fly
- Tweety can fly
- tweety is a robin
What is deductive strength
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:
- Requires deductive validity and reasonable premises
- The strength of a valid argument is proportional to the reasonableness of the conjunction of all its premises
- Strength can vary from person to person, depending on the evidence the people have
What is an incomplete argument?
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.
Explain the principle of charity
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
Explain how to recongize an argument
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
What are some techiques for identifying conclusions?
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
What are some techniques for identifying premises
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
What is the principle of faithfulness
Add implicit premises that are consistent with the intentions of the author of the arguement
What is the principle of Charity for implicit premises?
When adding implcit premises add ones that are reasonable/justified/rational to believe rather than ones that are obviously false
What is an Explicit and implicit conclusions?
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.
What is an Explicit and implicit premise?
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.
What is a specific statement?
premises that state facts about specific individuals
What is a generalization
Premises that state facts about general categories or kinds of individuals
for example:
Argument 5:
- Ken B. Bribed is a poltician
- 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
What is a quanitifier? Give examples
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.
Explain what a wide generalization is
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.
What is a narrow generalization
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.
Explain what a linking premise is
A premise that connects the stated premise to the conclusion
Explain the generalization principle
when adding a generlization as a implicit premise in an argument, add a true wide generalization rather than a false wide one
Explain cheap validity simply
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:
- 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
argument 14a
- it rained yesterday
- if it rained yesterday, then the leafs will win the cup
- 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.
explain the 1st common mistake in argument reconstruction: Improper Wording
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
Explain the 2nd common mistake in argument reconstruction: Missing premises
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
Explain the 3rd common mistake in argument reconstruction: Unnecessary Premises
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
What are the 3 common mistakes in argument reconstruction
- Improper wording
- Missing Premises
- Unnecessary Premises
what is a intermediate conclusion?
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.
What is a compound argument
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.
what is indirect justification
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.
What are the 6 basic rules of argument evaluation
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
Explain Do NOT criticize an argument by (MERELY) denying its conclusion
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
Explain Do NOT accept an argument simply because you believe the conclusion
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:
- All university professors are male
2.Kraary is a university prof - 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
Explain direct your criticism at individual premises or (inferences)
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
Explain make your criticisms of premises substantial
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
Explain Dont accept the conclusions of 2 competing arguments
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
Dont merely object to intermediate conclusions of compound arguments
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
- the maid was out of the country at the time of the murder
- 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)
- either the maid or the butler commited the murder
- 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)
What is Specific Factual premises?
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
What is a generaliztion premise?
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.
What is a compound sentence?
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
Explain what is Exhaustive vs Non-Exhuastive
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”
Explain what is Exclusive vs non-exclusive
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?”
Give a exhaustive and exclusive combination
pregnant or not pregnant
Give a exclusive and non-exhaustive combination
youll either get A or C
give a exhuastive and non exclusive combination
a list of all tmu degrees
Give a non exhaustive and non exclusive combination
sandwich or soup for lunch
What is the fallacy of false dichotomy?
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
Give an example of a sub argument
1, 2 is the sub argument, maid out of the country offered as a reason for suppporting the claim that she didnt do it
- the maid was out of the country at the time of the murder
*2. the maid didnt commit the murder (from 1)
- 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
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
Develop and reconstruct a argument with a sub argument within it from the following: “TMU is a great university. It has a convenient location because it’s right on the subway line. Moreover, it has attractive programs, and has friendly professors.”
1 does not support #5 it is there to support #2
- TMU is right on the subway line
*2 TMU Has a convenient location (from 1) - TMU has attractive programs
- TMU has friendly professors
*5. TMU is a great university (from 2, 3 and 4)
the sub-argument is #1,2
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
- TMU is located right on the subway line
- 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)
- TMU has attractive programs
- TMU has friendly profs
- 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)
Explain some additonal rules regarding implicit premises
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
What is a necessary condition?
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).
What is a sufficient condition?
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.
Give an example of a scenario with a sufficent and necessary conditions
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
Explain what broad means
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).
What are the 2 different types of broad?
- Reportive/Descriptive (trying to see how people use words, sometimes, new words get added oxford dictionary)
- 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
What is a narrow defintion?
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
what is a broad definiton?
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
What is a counterexample?
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
define ambigous/ambiguity
a word or phrase is ambiguous when it has more than one meaning (eg; bank)
define vague
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
Explain the fallacy of equivocation
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
- man is the only rational creature
- 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:
- Nothing is better than a good meal.
- Eating nothing is better than a good meal.
- 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.
What is the slippery slope fallacy
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.”
What the fallacy of hasty generalization
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
Explain the fallacy of begging the question
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.
Explain the fallacy of composition
- 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.
What is a fallacy?
a recognizied mistake in reasoning
Explain the fallacy of division
- 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.”
Explain the appeal to popularity fallacy
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.”
Explain the appeal to common practice fallacy
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
Explain the appeal to tradition fallacy
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.”
Explain the appeal to ignorance fallacy simply
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
Explain the Ad Hominem (to the person) fallacy simply list the different parts
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
Explain the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy
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!”
