Final Exam Notes

Sunday, May 15, 2022 9:58 AM

Arguments:
• Offer proof to convince reader to accept a conclusion
• Used for persuasion + justification
• Test if the person is trying to change your mind or behavior
• Have a conclusion + premise

Non-Arguments:
• Unsupported Assertions- statements about what a speaker or
writer happens to believe; they may be true or false, rational or
irrational

• Reports - simply convey information about a subject/author simply

reporting a series of events/aim is to narrate and inform rather
than give reasons for statements

• Illustrations- non-arguments when the purpose is not to provide

convincing evidence for a conclusion but merely to provide a few
notable or representative examples of a claim

• Conditional Statements

Explanation Tests

○ Common Knowledge Test:

If it is a matter of common knowledge

○ Past-Event Test:
Is the statement seeking to prove or explain a past event?

○ Author's Intent Test:

Is the statement providing reasons or evidence for accepting a
claim as true? (argument)
 Or is the statement trying to explain why something is the
case? or trying to present a cause for the occurrence
(explanation)

○ Principle of Charity Test:

When none of the tests are applicable/there is contradiction
between them, we interpret the passage as explanation.

• Descriptive Issues: raise questions about accuracy of descriptions

of the past, present or future.
• Prescriptive Issues: raise questions about what we should do or
what is right or wrong, good or bad.

• Deductive Arguments: rigorous, inescapable logic

• Inductive Arguments: plausible conclusion without guaranteeing it.

Deductive VS Inductive Tests:

○ Indicator word test- Certainly, absolutely, conclusively
Vs
Probably, likely, chances are that

○ Strict necessity test- whether the conclusion follows from the

premises with strict necessity.

○ Common pattern test- e.g conditional statement and then

conclusion

○ Principle of charity- when there are no clear indicators

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------->

DEDUCTIVE:

Hypothetical Syllogisms:
Modus Ponens:
If A, then B.
A.
Therefore B.

Chain Arguments:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
So, If A, then C.

Modus Tollens/ Denying the consequent:

If A, then B.
Not B.
There, not A.

Denying the Antecedent:

If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.

Affirming the Consequent:

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A.

Categorical Syllogism: three line argument in which each statement

starts with all, some or no. Familiar form of rigorous logical reasoning.

Argument by Elimination: logically rule out various possibilities until

only a single possibility remains. Eg Either A or B. Not A. So, B.

Argument Based on Math: conclusion dependent on mathematical

calculation or measurement.
Argument from Definition: Conclusion is true by definition. E.g Amna is
an aunt. Therefore, she is a woman.

INDUCTIVE:

Inductive Generalization: generalization is claimed to be probably true

based on information about some members of a particular class.

Predictive Argument: prediction is defended with reasons.

Argument from Authority: asserts a claim and then supports that claim
by citing some presumed authority or witness who said that the claim is
true.

Causal Argument: asserts/denies that something is the cause of

something else. Eg

Statistical Argument: statistical evidence to support an argument.

Argument from Analogy: conclusion is claimed to be dependent on

analogy between 2 or more things.
A is similar to B.
B hs property P.
So, A has property P.

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------->

Ø Vices = problems
- Premises do not provide a good reason for the conclusion to the
conclusion does not follow from premises necessarily
- One or more premises false
- Given that argument is deductive

Ø Valid = 1 virtue ie conclusion follows necessarily from premises

Ø Sound = valid AND premises true
Ø If invalid argument -> has to be unsound!!
Ø

Categories of Unsound Arguments:

1. Valid but at least 1 false premise.
2. Invalid but all premises are true.
3. Invalid but at least 1 false premise.

Strong Inductive Arguments: Conclusion follows probably from the

premises.
Conditions:
1. If the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
2. The premises provide probable but not logically conclusive,
grounds for the truth of the conclusion.
3. If premises, if true, make the conclusion likely.
( false premises/probably false conclusion , false premises/probably
true conclusion , true premises/probably true conclusion )

Weak Inductive Arguments: Conclusion does not follow probably from

the premises.

Ø Cogent Arguments: inductively strong argument with all true

premises.
Ø Uncogent Argument: inductive weak/strong argument with atleast 1
false premise.
Categories of Uncogent:
1. Strong but atleast 1 false premise
2. Weak but all premises are true
3. Weak and has at least 1 false premise

Ø Loaded language: interferes with our attempt to understand

cognitive meaning of a sentence
Ø Emotionally-loaded: blinds us to need for evidence/disguises
unsupported assertion

Ø Ambiguity: word/expression has 2 distinct meanings

1. Lexical Ambiguity: word having more than 1 meaning in the
language
2. Referential Ambiguity: unclear which thing/group is being
referred to
3. Syntactic Ambiguity: ambiguity resulting from faulty grammer

Ø Vagueness: term has imprecise boundary/fuzzy meaning

________________
Ø Verbal Dispute: miscommunication resulted when a word has more
than 1 meanings and intended meaning is not clarified eg guilty
example.

Ø Factual Dispute: when people disagree over relevant facts

Definitions:
1. Lexical: standard definition of a word in the
language/conventional dictionary meaning. (true)
2. Stipulative: assigning a new meaning to a term. (neither true nor
false)
3. Precising: making a vague word more precise so meaning isnt
left to interpretation.
4. Persuasive: giving a term a subjective definition to persuade the
reader. Contains emotional appeals!!!! Loaded defintion.

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------>

Ø Fallacy: mistake in reasoning.

Formal fallacies:
• Affirming the consequent. (If A, then B. B, so A.)
 • Denying the antecedent. (If A, then B; not A; so, not B)

2 types:

Fallacies of relevance: premises irrelevant to the conclusion.

Positive relevance = statement counts in favour of another
statement

1. Ad hominem (personal attack): reject someone's argument by

attacking the person rather than the person's argument. Source of
the argument is irrelevant to the quality of the argument.
Ø Not every personal attack is ad hominem tho

2. Circumstantial ad hominem (attacking the motive): criticizing a

person’s motivation for offering a particular argument, rather than
examining the worth of the argument

3. Tu Quoque (look who's talking): suggesting the opponent is

hypocritical based on what they preach vs practice eg preaching
stop smoking but smokes himself

4. Two Wrongs Make a Right: justifying a wrong act by claiming

something else is just as bad or worse

5. Straw Man Fallacy: distort/misrepresent opponents argument to

make it easier to attack
Identify by asking questions:
Ø What were the exact words used in original
Ø Have any key words been changed/omitted
Ø Does the context suggest that author was deliberately
exaggerating or leaving out obvious exception clauses
Ø Involving different issue than the one stated?

6. Scare Tactics (appeal to force): defending conclusion by

threatening well-being of people who don’t agree
7. Bandwagon (appeal to the people - ad populum fallacy): playing
on peoples desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than
appealing to logic

8. Appeal to pity (ad misericordiam fallacy): inappropriately evoke

feelings of pity from audience, when the statement is not logically
related

9. Red Herring: premises are logically unrelated to the conclusion.

Sidetrack w an irrelevant issue

10. Equivocation: key word is used in 2 or more senses in the same

argument where validity requires a single meaning of the word

11. Begging the question: state as premise the thing that they are
trying to prove as conclusion
This is done by:
Ø Restating the premise in different words for conclusion
Ø Circular reasoning- A bcz B, B bcz A

Fallacies of insufficient evidence: premises fail to provide

sufficient evidence for the conclusion

1. Appeal to ignorance: claiming a statement is true bc it hasn’t

been proved false

2. False Dilemma/Alternative: using premise that reduces the

number of alternatives to be considered

3. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority: citing an authority who,

there is good reason to believe, is unreliable:
a. Is the source not an authority on the subject at issue?
b. Is the source biased?
c. Is the accuracy of the source's observations questionable?
d. Is the source known to be generally unreliable?
 e. Has the source been cited incorrectly?
f. Does the source's claim conflict with expert opinion?
g. Is the source's claim not one that can be settled by an appeal
to expert opinion?
h. Is the claim highly improbable on its face?

4. Questionable Cause: claiming one thing has happened bc of

something else without evidence.
Common varieties:
a. Post hoc fallay: because A happened before B, B happened
bc of A.
b. Mere correlation fallacy: assuming A must be the cause of B
because they occur together, without suff. evidence
c. Oversimplified cause fallacy: assuming A is the sole cause of
B by igoring other causes that have likely contributed to B.

5. Slippery Slope: assuming a chain reaction will occur without suff

evidence of causal. Seemingly harmless action will lead to disaster.
"catastrophizing".

6. Loaded Question: question involving an unfair or questionable

assumption. E.g "Do you still steal from your boss?" is a loaded
question if it presupposes, without justification, that you once did
steal from your boss.

7. Hasty Generalization: asssert that all things of a certain kind

have a certain quality. misrepresentative sample

8. Weak Analogy: comparing 2 irrelevant things- that aren't

comparable in relevant respects.

9. Inconsistency: asserting inconsistent/contradictory claims.

E.g Since A, (premise)
and not A, (premise
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----->
Convergent Arguments:
Arguments with premises that independently support the conclusion.

If one of the premises is false, the conclusion is still supported because

the remaining premises provide independent support for the
conclusion.

Linked Premises:
When premises depend on each other to support the conclusion, they
are linked.

All of the linked premises must be true in order to support the

conclusion. If one of the premises is false, the conclusion is no longer
supported.

Refuting Deductive Arguments

Corresponding Criticism
 Show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
 Show that the premises are false or doubtful.
<-------------------------------------------------------------->

A sound argument cannot have a false conclusion, but a cogent

argument can have a false conclusion.
Validity is an all-or-nothing affair; it DOES NOT come in degrees.
<-------------------------------------------------------------->

Questions to ask about authorities:

• How much expertise or training does the authority have
about the subject about which he is communicating?
• Was the authority in a position to have especially good
access to pertinent facts?
• Is there good reason to believe that the authority is relatively
free of distorting influences?
• Has the authority developed a reputation for frequently
making dependable claims? Have we been able to rely on this
authority in the past?
<-------------------------------------------------------------->

Induction by Enumeration:
1. ____ percent of a sample of A are B.
So, 2. Approximately ____ percent of A are B.

• Random Samples
• A sample is random if (and only if) each member of the
population has an equal chance of being selected for observation.
• It is easy to obtain random samples when the members of a
population are known to have a high degree of uniformity.
• Difficult when it comes to human opinions

• Appropriate Sample Size

• It depends on (a) the size of the population and (b) the
acceptable
degree of error (c) degree of uniformity of population

• Size of the Population

• To some extent, the size of the sample depends on the size of the
population.
• This is especially true when the population is relatively small.
• One common misconception about samples is that the larger the
population, the larger the sample should be.

• Acceptable degree of error

• The sampling error is the difference between the
percentage of the sample that has the attribute in
question and the percentage of the population that has
it.

• Psychological Factors
• Even if a sample is randomly chosen and of the appropriate size,
 an
induction generalization can still be weak because of psychological
factors
E.g “How often have you driven your car while intoxicated?”

Argument from Analogy in Legal Reasoning:

Analysis:
• Question 1: In what ways are A and B similar?
• Question 2: Are A and B dissimilar in any relevant respects?
• Question 3: Are there things other than A (the prohibition of
hard drugs) that are similar to B (the prohibition of alcohol)
in the relevant respects but that lack P (the property of being
a mistake)?