Understand and construct logical arguments Assignment 4 -100 points – Using this presentation and a current event associated to computing, demonstrate valid logical argument and an invalid argument. DUE Monday, July 18 Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Purpose The School of Computing and Software Engineering has program objectives. One of these objectives is: Students recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning This assignment addresses this objective. Objectives for this assignment: Understand and construct logical arguments using current events associated to computing Demonstrate valid logical arguments and an invalid argument Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Assignment 4– Two Arguments from Current Events Pre- assignment : View and study the entire presentation. Assignment: Construct 2 logical arguments (one valid and one invalid) using a current event topic associated to computing that interests you Research and find one or more current events. {Note: Include the source with all its details (author, date, URL, etc.)} The event articles, event news, etc. contains information that can be used as premises Construct your first Argument in Ordinary Language {Step 1} Convert the argument into standard form. {Step 2} Continue using the steps in slide 15 & 16 with your first argument. Then construct a completely different argument using the same 8 steps and the same current event. Submit your documentation of Assignment 4 into D2L Dropbox by the due Date Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Logical Arguments An argument can be defined as a: form of reasoning that attempts to establish the truth of one claim (called a conclusion) based on the assumed truth of the evidence in other claims (called premises) provided to support the conclusion. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Arguments’ Characteristics An argument has three important characteristics or features in that it: Is a "form of reasoning.” Is comprised of claims (sometimes also called statements or assertions). Aims at establishing a conclusion (i.e., one claim) based on evidence provided (by other claims) Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Structure of an Argument Premise 1 optional optional Premise 2 optional optional Premise N optional optional __________ Conclusion Premise 1. When I recently visited the Computer Science Department at the University of Hiroshima I noticed that graduate students and professors there were field testing a new computer chip, whose code name is Chip X. Premise 2. I have a copy of the design specifications for Chip X, which shows that it will be several times faster than any chip currently available in the US. Premise 3. Lee Smith, a mutual colleague of ours who was recently an exchange student in the computer science program at the University of Hiroshima and who participated in the field testing of Chip X, will corroborate my account. ________________________________________ Conclusion. Chip X is currently being developed in Japan. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Sample Arguments continued Premise 1. An author's freedom to write a book on how to build a bomb is one that is protected by the First Amendment. Premise 2. Authoring a book is similar to constructing a Web Site. ___________________________________________ Conclusion. Constructing a Web site on how to build a bomb ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Sample Arguments continued Premise: The Internet is in public space. ________________________________ Conclusion: Therefore, those who use the Internet should not expect to retain any personal privacy. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Critical Thinking Skills for Identifying Logical Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning The term "fallacy" does not mean false statement. It means faulty reasoning. So it is possible for an argument to contain all true statements and still be fallacious. Informal Logical Fallacies Many fallacies appear in everyday reasoning. Logicians have categorized them in ways that are convenient for us to recognize. We refer to these kinds of fallacious arguments as informal logical fallacies. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Some Common Informal Fallacies Ad Hominem Argument a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself Slippery Slope Argument a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a particular result will probably (or even must inevitably) follow from a given decision or circumstance, without necessarily providing any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the likelihood of the assumed consequence. Fallacy of Appeal to Authority a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it. False Cause Fallacy a cause is incorrectly identified. Presumed a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. Begging the Question a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true Fallacy of Composition/Fallacy of Division when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole Fallacy of Ambiguity When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." The Many/Any Fallacy This occurs when one reasons from the fact that many alternatives are acceptable to the claim that any alternative is acceptable Ex) There are many ways for a travel agent to route someone between Savannah and Kalamazoo It doesn’t follow that any way of sending someone between these cities is acceptable The Virtuality Fallacy An informal fallacy of combining two premises together to prove that something is not real. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Constructing an Argument in Ordinary Language (Prose) We must build a national missile defense system (NMD) because without such a system we are vulnerable to nuclear attacks from rogue nations that might arise in the future. Additionally, several engineers and computer scientists have testified that they can design a computer-guided missile defense system that is effective, safe and reliable. Furthermore, it is our obligation as Americans to take whatever measures we can to protect the safety of our citizens. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Converting to Standard Form Premise 1. Without the new National Missile Defense System, the US is vulnerable to nuclear attacks in the future from "rogue nations. Premise 2. Computer scientists and engineers have testified that they can design a computer-guided missile defense system that is both safe and reliable. Premise 3. The US must do whatever is necessary to preserve the military defense of the nation and the safety of its citizens. ____________________________________________________ Conclusion. Therefore, the US should build the new National Missile Defense System. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Arguments can be Valid or Invalid PP Give an example of a valid argument and an example of an invalid argument using the same context. Invalid Valid Premises (even when true) do not guarantee the conclusion. The assumed truth of the premises is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Invalid Arguments Valid Arguments Sound Unsound All the premises are true. At least one premise is false. Inductive Fallacious Conclusion likely follows from assuming the truth of the premises. Conclusion does not likely follow from assuming the truth of the premises. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

National Missile Defense Argument Reconstructed Premise 1. Without the new National Missile Defense System, the US is vulnerable to nuclear attacks in the future from "rogue nations. Premise 2. Computer scientists and engineers have testified before Congress that they can design a computer-guided missile defense system that is both safe and reliable. Premise 3. The US must do whatever is necessary to preserve the military defense of the nation and the safety of its citizens. Premise 4. The national missile defense system is necessary to preserve the defense and safety of the US and its citizens. ____________________________________________________ Conclusion. Therefore, the US should build the new National Missile Defense System. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Comprehensive View of Arguments Valid Invalid Unsound Sound Inductive Fallacious Weak Arguments Strong Arguments Weak Arguments Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

8 Steps for Stating and Evaluating Arguments (first five) 1. Construct the Argument in Ordinary Language (Prose) {see slide 11} 2. Convert the argument into standard form. (List the premises first, followed by the conclusion.) 3. Test the argument for its reasoning strength to see whether it is valid or invalid. (Assume the premises to be true, and ask yourself whether the conclusion must also be true when those premises are assumed true. Is a counterexample to the argument possible?) 4. Is the argument valid? If yes, go to Step 5. If no, go to Step 6. 5. Is the (valid) argument also sound? That is, are the premises true in the actual world? 5a. If the argument is valid and if all of the premises are true in the actual world, then the argument is also sound. 5b. If the argument is valid, but one or more premises can be shown to be either false or not capable of being verified in the actual world, then argument is unsound. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

8 Steps for Stating and Evaluating Arguments (Last three steps) 6. Is the (invalid) argument inductive or fallacious? (How likely will the conclusion be true when the premises are assumed true?) 6a. If the conclusion would likely be true because the premises are assumed true, the argument is inductive. 6b. If the conclusion would not likely be true even when the premises are assumed true, the argument is fallacious. (Keep in mind that a fallacious argument can be made up of Individual claims that are themselves true in the actual world.) 7. Determine whether the premises in your argument are either true or false. 8. Make an overall assessment of the argument. That is, describe the argument's strength of reasoning in conjunction with the truth conditions of the argument's premises. For example, is the argument inductive with all true premises? Is it inductive with some false premises? Is it fallacious with a mixture of true and false premises, and so forth? Remember that an inductive argument with premises that are all true is stronger than a valid argument with one or more false premises. Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Assignment 4– Two Arguments from Current Events Pre- assignment : View and study the presentation. Assignment: Construct 2 logical arguments (one valid and one invalid) using a current event topic associated to computing that interests you Research and find one or more current events. {Note: Include the source with all its details (author, date, URL, etc.)} The event articles, event news, etc. contains information that can be used as premises Construct your first Argument in Ordinary Language {Step 1} Convert the argument into standard form. {Step 2} Continue using the steps in slide 16 & 17 with your first argument. Then construct a completely different argument using the same 8 steps and the same current event. Submit your documentation of Assignment 4 into D2L Dropbox by the due Date Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments

Evaluation for Assignment 4 POINTS are shown in () Satisfactory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Not done Max Points Earned Submit Assignment 4 into D2L Dropbox by the due Date.  by date specified (10) LATE by one day (9) LATE by 2-4 days (8-5) Student did not answer/submit (0) 10 Step 1 & 2- first Argument in Ordinary Language then in standard form Done correctly. (20) Needs improvement (19-16) Incorrect (15-13) Not Done (0) 20 Step 3-7 Test the first argument for its reasoning strength to see whether it is valid or invalid Done correctly. (25) Needs improvement (24-16) 25 Step 1 & 2- second Argument in Ordinary Language then in standard form Step 3-7 Test the second argument for its reasoning strength to see whether it is valid or invalid   TOTAL 100 Module 7.1 Current Events & Logical Arguments