Argument vs non-Argument:

- Argument: An argument is a set of statements where one or more

statements (premises) are presented as evidence or reasons to support
another statement (conclusion). The goal of an argument is to persuade
someone of the truth of the conclusion based on the provided premises.
Arguments have a clear structure in which premises lead to a conclusion.
- Non-argument (Mere Collection of Statements): A non-argument is a
collection of statements that are presented without any clear intention of
establishing a relationship of support or reasoning. These statements
might be unrelated facts, opinions, observations, or random statements,
but they don't form a structured chain of premises and a conclusion.
- Non arguments:
- Non-inferential passages- simple non- inferential passages:
unproblematic passages lacking a claim that anything is being proved.
- Warnings: unproblematic passages lacking a claim that anything is being
proved.
- Pieces of advice: an expression that suggests something about a future
decision or course of conduct.
- Statements of belief or opinion: an expression of what someone believes
or thinks about something.
- Loosely associated statements:do not make the assertion that one of them
is supported by the others although they may be on the same broad
subject.
- Reports: A report consists of a group of statements transmitting
information about some topic or event
- Expository passages: A discourse that begins with a topic sentence
followed by one or more sentences that develop it. Expository passages
differ from simple non-inferential passages because many can be taken as
arguments.
- Illustrations: an expression involving one or more examples intended to
show meaning or how it is done. Contain indicator words.
- Explanations: an expression that aims to shed light on some event or
phenomenon which is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
- Conditional statements: If [antecedent], then [consequent]. The
antecedent is the statement that comes after "if." It's the condition or the
event that's being assumed or described. The consequent is the statement
that comes after "then." It's the result or the conclusion that follows from
the antecedent. Implication: "If... then" statements express an implication
or a logical relationship between the antecedent and the consequent. The
 antecedent serves as a condition that, when satisfied, leads to the
conclusion stated in the consequent.
- Necessary and Sufficient: Necessary Cause: A necessary cause is a
condition or factor that must be present for a certain event to occur. In
other words, without the necessary cause, the event cannot happen. It's a
requirement that must be fulfilled for the outcome to take place.
Sufficient Cause: A sufficient cause is a condition or factor that, if
present, guarantees the occurrence of a certain event. It alone is enough to
bring about the outcome, regardless of other conditions. It's a complete
cause that leads to the effect by itself.
- Deductive and Inductive Arguments:
- Deductive arguments: rest on necessary reasoning: A deductive
argument is an argument which claim that it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true.
- Inductive arguments: rest on probabilistic reasoning: Inductive
arguments is an argument which claim that it is improbable that the
conclusion be false given that the premises are true.

- Deductive argument forms: Many arguments have a distinctive

character or form which indicates that the premises are supposed to
provide absolute support for conclusions.
- Argument based on mathematics: an argument in which the conclusion
depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement.
- Arguments from definition: an argument which the conclusion is
claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used
in the premise or conclusion.
- Syllogisms: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly two
premises and one conclusion.
- Categorical syllogism: is a syllogism which in each statement begins
with one of the words “all” or “no” or “some”.
- Hypothetical syllogism: is a syllogism having a conditional (if…then)
statement for one or both of its premises.
- Disjunctive syllogism: is a syllogism having a disjunctive (either…or…)
statement.
- Inductive argument forms: arguments in which the content of the
conclusion is in some way intended to ‘go beyond’ the content of the
premises. The premises of such an argument deal with some subject
 which is relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to
a subject that is less familiar or that little is known about.
- Predictions about the future: A prediction is an argument that proceeds
from our knowledge of the past to claim about the future.
- Arguments of analogy: an argument form analogy is an argument which
depends on the existence of an analogy or similarity between two things
or situation.
- Inductive generalizations: a generalization is an argument which
proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about
the whole group.
- Arguments from authority: an argument from authority, is an argument
that concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness
has said that it is,
- Arguments based on signs: an argument based on signs is an argument
that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a claim about the thing or
situation that the sign symbolizes.
- Causal inference: a causal inference is an argument that proceeds from
knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect, or conversely, from
knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause.
- Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency:
- Validity: Validity refers to the logical correctness of an argument's
structure. An argument is considered valid if the conclusion logically
follows from its premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or
false. In other words, if the premises were true, the conclusion would
necessarily be true as well.
- Soundness: A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.
For an argument to be sound, it not only has to be logically valid but also
based on true information. Sound arguments provide solid reasoning with
accurate premises, leading to a conclusion that is both logically valid and
factually true.
- Cogency: Cogency is a term used to assess inductive arguments, which
aim to provide probabilistic support rather than absolute certainty. A
cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has true
premises. It's based on a strong logical connection between premises and
conclusion, and the premises are supported by reliable evidence.
- a valid deductive argument is an argument where it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. The conclusion
follows from the premises strictly by necessity.
- An invalid deductive argument is a deductive argument where it is
possible for the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true. The
conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even
though it is claimed to.
- a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises.
- an unsound argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or
more false premises, or both.
- a strong inductive argument is an inductive argument in which it is
improbable that the conclusion is false if the premises are true. The
conclusion does follow probably from the premises.
- a weak inductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion does
not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
- Uniformity of nature: All inductive arguments depend on what
philosophers call the uniformity of nature. This idea holds that patterns
that exist in one spatial location tend to appear in other areas and that the
future will often resemble the past. Our conclusions about what we would
ordinarily expect to occur are ultimately supported by nature's
consistency.
- Good inductive arguments are those that accord with the uniformity of
nature. They draw conclusions that we would naturally anticipate being
accurate. If the conclusion was false, this occurrence would cause us to
react with surprise.
- Argument forms: Proving Invalidity:
- the validity of a deductive argument by determining the argument form.
- This mean that all valid arguments have the same form, and all invalid
arguments have the same form.
- Therefore, argument form illustrates the argument’s internal structure or
pattern of reasoning.
For example:

All A are B
A
All C are A

All C are B B C

- If A, B and C represent groups of things, it’s easy to see that this is a valid
form. Assumed by the second premise that the C’s are included in the A’s
 and by the first premise that the A’s are included in the B’s. Then it
necessarily follows that the C’s are included in the B’s.
- Hence: an argument form is an arrangement of letters and words such
that the uniform substitution of words of phrases in the place of the letters
results in an argument. For this form, the words or phrases being
substituted must refer to groups of things (within the argument).

For example:

All A are B All sporting events are engaging pastimes.

All C are A All baseball games are sporting events.

All C are B All baseball games are engaging pastimes.

- If we substitute “sporting events”, “engaging pastimes”, and “baseball

games” in the place of A, B, and C, respectively in the argument form
(left above), we obtain the following argument (right above). This
instance is called a substitution instance of the argument form. Any
substitution instance of a valid argument form is a valid argument.
- Let’s consider invalid argument
form:
A
C
All A are B

All C are B B

All A are C

- In this argument form, if we assume that the A’s are in the B’s and that the
C’s are in the B’s, it does not necessarily follow that the A’s are in the C’s.
It would not follow if the A’s were in one part of the B’s and the C’s were
in another as the diagram illustrates above.
- The diagram suggest that we can prove the form of the argument invalid
if we can find a substitution instance having actually true premises and a
false conclusion.
- For example: if we substitute “cats” for A, “animals” for B and “dogs” for
C, we have such a substitution instance:

All A are B All cats are animals. True

All C are B All dogs are animals. True

All A are C Therefore, all cats are dogs. False

- The substitution instance prove the argument invalid. It proves a concrete

example of the case where the As are in the Bs and the Cs are in the Bs
but the As are not in the Cs.
- Not every substitution instance for an invalid form Is in an invalid
argument. The reason is that some substitution instances of invalid forms
are also substitution instances of valid forms. However, we can say that
any substitution instance of an invalid form is an invalid argument
provided that it is not a substitution instance of any valid form. Hence, we
can say that an argument actually has an invalid form if it is a substitution
instance of that form and is not a substitution instance of any valid form.
- For example: the following valid argument is a substitution instance of
the invalid form we have been discussing:
All bachelors are persons. All A are B
All unmarried men are persons. All A are B
Therefore, all bachelors are unmarried men. All A are A

- However, because “bachelors” are equivalent in meaning to “unmarried

men” the argument is also a substitution instance of this valid form.

- Counterexample Method

- A substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion is

called a counterexample, and the method we will use in the example
below to prove that the argument is invalid is a counterexample method.
It consists of isolating the form of an argument and then constructing a
 substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. This
proves the form invalid, which in turns proves the argument invalid.

- The counterexample method can be used to prove the invalidity of any

invalid argument but, it cannot prove the validity of any valid argument.
Therefore, before the method is applied to an argument, the argument
must be known or suspected to be invalid in the first place.

- For example, let’s apply the counterexample method to the following

categorical syllogism:

- Since some employees are not social climbers and all vice presidents are
employees, we may conclude that some vice presidents are not social
climbers.

This argument is invalid because the employees who are not social
climbers might not be vice presidents. Accordingly, we can prove the
argument invalid by constructing a substitution instance having true
premises and a false conclusion. We begin by isolating the form of the
argument.
Some E are not S
All V are E
Some V are not S

Next we select three terms to substitute in place of the letters that will
make the premises true and the conclusion false:
E= Animals
S= Mammals
V=Dogs

The resulting substitution instance is this:

Some animals are not mammals.
All dogs are animals.
Therefore, some dogs are not mammals.

The substitution instance has true premises and a false conclusion and is
therefore, by definition invalid. Because the substation instance is invalid,
the form is invalid and therefore, the original argument is invalid.
 -
-

 Identify the Argument's Structure: First, you need to understand the

logical structure of the argument. This involves recognizing the premises
(the statements provided as evidence) and the conclusion (the main point
being made).
 Construct a Counterexample: Create a specific scenario that fulfills all
the premises of the argument but leads to a conclusion that contradicts the
original conclusion. The key is to follow the premises exactly while
reaching a different, but still logically consistent, conclusion.
 Present the Counterexample: Share the counterexample with others to
illustrate how the argument fails to produce the intended conclusion
despite following the premises. This highlights the flaw in the argument's
logical structure.
 Analyze the Implications: The counterexample demonstrates that the
argument is invalid – the premises don't necessarily lead to the
conclusion. This highlights a flaw in the reasoning, indicating that the
argument is not reliable in supporting its conclusion.
Fallacy: A defect in an argument that arises from a mistake in reasoning or
the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appears good.
- Fallacies are errors in reasoning that can undermine the validity or
soundness of an argument. They are deceptive or misleading patterns of
thought that, while often appearing persuasive, do not provide valid or
reliable support for a conclusion. Fallacies can take various forms and can
occur at any stage of an argument, including its premises or its logical
structure. These errors can lead to flawed reasoning, misleading
conclusions, and inaccurate beliefs.
- Fallacies are problematic because they can create the illusion of a strong
argument while failing to provide genuine logical support for the
 conclusion. They often rely on emotional appeals, irrelevant distractions,
or faulty assumptions to persuade the audience, diverting attention from
the actual merits of the argument. Recognizing fallacies is crucial for
critical thinking because it allows individuals to distinguish between
well-constructed arguments and those that are flawed or manipulative.
- In essence, fallacies serve as cautionary examples that remind us to
critically examine arguments for their coherence, relevance, and logical
consistency. By understanding common fallacies and being able to
identify them in reasoning, individuals can better evaluate the strength
and validity of arguments, make informed decisions, and engage in
discussions with greater clarity and intellectual integrity.

- There are two kinds of fallacies.

*Formal Fallacies- Detectable by analysing the form of an argument.
* Informal Fallacies- Detectable only by analysing the content of the
argument.
- Fallacies of Relevance
- Appeal to Force: Arguer threatens the reader/listener.
- Appeal to Pity: Arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener.
- Appeal to the People: Arguer incites a mob mentality (direct form) or
appeals to our desire for security, love, or respect (indirect form). This
fallacy includes appeal to fear, the bandwagon argument, appeal to vanity,
appeal to snobbery, and appeal to tradition.
- Argument against the person: arguer personally attacks an opposing
arguer verbally (ad hominem abusive), presenting the opponent as
predisposed to argue as he or she does (ad hominen circumstantial), or by
presenting the opponent as a hypocrite (tu quoque).
- Note: for fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers.
- Accident: A general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended
to cover.
- Straw man: Arguer distorts an opponent’s argument and then attacks the
distorted argument.
- Missing the point: arguer draws a conclusion different from the one
supported by the premises.
- Note: Do not cite this fallacy if another fallacy fits.
- Red herring: Arguer leads the reader/ listener off the track.
- Fallacies of Weak Induction: The premises may be relevant to the
conclusion, but they supply insufficient support for the conclusion.
- Appeal to unqualified authorities: Arguer cites an untrustworthy
authority.
- Appeal to ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved
about some subject, and then a conclusion is drawn about that subject.
- Hasty generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical
sample.
- False case: Conclusion depends on a non-existent or minor causal
connection.
- Slippery slope: Conclusion depends on an unlikely chain reaction of
causes.
- Weak analogy: Conclusion depends on a defective analogy.
- Fallacies of Presumption: The premises presume what they purport to
prove:
- Begging the question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate
premises are adequate by leaving out a key premise, restating the
conclusion as a premise, or reasoning in a circle.
- Complex question: Multiple questions are concealed in a single
question.
- False dichotomy: An “either…or…” premise presents two unlikely
alternatives as if they were the only ones available.
- Suppressed evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a
different conclusion.
- Fallacies of Ambiguity: An ambiguous word, phrase, or statement leads
to an incorrect conclusion.
- Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or
phrase.
- Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on an incorrect interpretation of an
ambiguous statement made by someone other than the arguer.
- Fallacies of Illicit transference: An attribute is incorrectly transferred
from the parts of something, onto the whole or from the whole onto the
parts:
- Composition: An attribute is incorrectly transferred from the parts to the
whole.
- Division: An attribute is incorrectly transferred from the whole to the
parts.
- Fallacies that occur in real-life argumentation may be hard to detect:
- They may not exactly fit in the pattern of the named fallacies.
- They may not involve two or more fallacies woven together in a single-
passage.
- Three factors underline the commission of fallacies in real-life
argumentation:
- The intent of the arguer (the arguer may intend to mislead someone).
- Mental carelessness combined with unchecked emotions.
- Unexamined presuppositions in the arguer’s worldview.
(PJ. Hurley &. L. Watson, 2018. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 13 ed.
United States: Cengage Learning. P. 203-205.)
Consistency: in reasoning: Arguments and ideas that make sense and don't
contradict each other.
Refutation: in logic is a technique used to disprove a statement or argument.
It involves identifying flaws, inconsistencies, or contradictions within the
argument, thus demonstrating its invalidity.
Abduction: is a process of reasoning used to decide which explanation of
given phenomena we should select, and so, naturally, it is also called
‘argument to the best explanation’.
‘Principle of Charity’: states that interpreters should seek to maximize the
soundness of others’ arguments and truth of their claims by rendering them
in the strongest way reasonable. In other words, when there are different
translations that could reasonably well explain an individual’s speech or
behaviour, the one that should be chosen above the others is the one that
renders it most rational under the relevant circumstances.
Strong analogy: an analogy is strong when the things compared (1) share a
large or decisive number of relevant similarities and (2) do not exhibit
a large or decisive number of relevant differences.
Weak analogy: an analogy is weak when the things compared (1) do not
share a large or decisive number of relevant similarities or (2) do exhibit
a large or decisive number of relevant differences.