TOPIC 2 Flashcards
Critical thinking
ability to analyze and break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution
starts with logic…
unnatural act of knowing which facts you’re putting together to reach your conclusions
Critical thinking and Argumentation
- critical thinking is a strong skill for argumentation
- to arrive at a conclusion, critical thinking requires the capacity to assess the situation, scrutinize the evidence and consider multiple point of views
Argumentation
- communication process in which someone tries to convince another to accept their opinion by presenting reasons and evidence
- the art of convincing and persuading a person to adopt a specific behaviour
What does argumentation happen through?
Reason (showing facts, proving) - convincing
Emotion (non-verbal communication) - persuading
Argument
set of statements arranged in such a way that the conclusion is demonstrated by the premises of the argument
A group of claims is arranged as an argument when:
1- one of the claims (the “conclusion”) is treated as controversial (a claim to be defended)
2- one of the other claim(s) (the “premises”) are put forth as claims meant to support the conclusion
Form of an argument (common conditional)
- If P then Q (conditional sentence)
- P (affirms the antecedent of premise 1)
THEREFORE - Q (is the consequent of premise 1)
When is an argument valid
- When all the premises are true
- When the conclusion (consequent) follows from the premises (antecedent)
Syllogism
- model of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two premises
Types of syllogisms
Conditional: syllogism that neither affirms nor denies the premises
Disjunctive: syllogism formed by a premise that presents itself as an alternative
Dilemma: argumentative syllogism where two possible hypotheses are presented, none of which are desirable
Conditional syllogism
Modus Ponens:
- If p then q, P, therefore Q
Modus Tollens:
- If p then q, not q, therefore not p
Disjunctive syllogism
Modus Ponendo Tollens:
- Either p or q, P, therefore not Q
Modus Tollendo Ponens:
- Either p or q, not p, therefore q
Dilemma
- problematic situation composed of two options that are contradictory to each other
- none of the options is satisfactory
- Or p, or q, if p, then r, if q, then r, in one way or another, r
Fallacies
an argument is fallacious when the reasons given, appear to support the conclusion but, in reality, do not
Affirming the consequent
If P then q, q, therefore P
Denying the antecedent
If p, then q, not p, therefore not q
Equivocation
the same word used with two different meanings (the word inhuman)
Distorcion of facts
argument is falsified, presented in a partial way, or based on ad hoc evidence
Straw man
author attacks an argument that is different from, usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument
Irrelevant conclusion
an argument that falsely proves one thing, and instead, proves a different conclusion (you must accept the new lease policy, we cannot continue to see people living on the street)
False analogy
assumption that if two things are alike in one regard, they must be alike in other ways
hasty generalization
The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion
Begging the question
an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it
Argument from ignorance
assume that if something has not been proven false, it is therefore true, vice versa
Attacking the person
the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself
Attacking the person: ad hominem
ad hominem (abusive): argument attacks the person who made the assertion
ad hominem (circumstantial): author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances
ad hominem (tu quoque): notes that the person does not practice what he preaches
Argumentation: Preparatory System (Base structure of the argumentation process)
- main thesis should not be presented in the beginning of the argumentation process
- prepare audience in advance to be open to what we have to say
- the preparatory thesis is based on facts and presumptions
Argumentation techniques: Compatibility/ Incompatibility
aim is to show that the preparatory thesis is consistent, or not, with the main thesis
Argumentation techniques: Consequences technique
aim is to show the positive or negative consequences of a particular event (strikes: positive side, helps join forces and work towards a specific goal, negative side, jeapordizes the normal functioning of the affected services)
Argumentation techniques: Conditional argument technique
aim is to defend an idea throughout a condition (strikes are always valid when they’re peaceful, violence makes it worse)
Argumentation techniques: Explanation technique
aim is to define concepts and prepare the ground for the argument to flow effectively
Argumentation techniques: Examples technique
aim is to defend an idea through the use of an example
Argumentation techniques: Comparison technique
aim is to defend an idea by comparing two or more things
Argumentation techniques: Model/antimodel technique
aim is to defend an idea through a model or reference or through an antimodel, illuminating what should be avoided
Argumentation techniques: Analogy technique
aim is to defend an idea through the use of analogies
Argumentation techniques: Quantitative elements techniques
aim is to defend an idea using statistics
Argumentation techniques: Citation technique
aim is to defend an idea using figures of reference (Socrates once said…)
Argumentation techniques: Twisting technique
turning the adversary’s arguments against him
Argumentation techniques: Ridiculous technique
consists of creating an ironic situation that temporarily adapts to the adversary’s argument, extracting from it all the conclusions, however absurd they may be
Rhetoric
the art of persuasion and effective communication, involves use of techniques to persuade the audience such as presenting, using emotive language and creating an emotional connection with the audience
Aristotle’s rhetoric
1) Ethos: your audience has to trust you, and you must establish credibility through non-verbal communication
2) Pathos: you must appeal to your audience’s emotion, and connect with them on an emotional level
3) Logos: use data, evidence, and facts to support your arguments
- Enthymeme: conclusion deducted from premises
- Example
