Chapter 8: Recognizing Arguments

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hypotheticals: The If/Then Form Hypothetical arguments are usually more obvious than categorical ones. A hypothetical argument has an “if/then” pattern.
Advertisements

Argument Basics Getting to Accept - Reject - Suspend Judgment.
What makes an argument good? It is often taken to be the case that an argument is good if it is persuasive, that is, if people are inclined to accept it.
Logic & Critical Reasoning Identifying arguments.
BIRDS FLY. is a bird Birds fly Tweety is a bird Tweety flies DEFEASIBLE NON-MONOTONIC PRESUMPTIVE?
Ling 21: LANGUAGE & THOUGHT Lecture 2: Recognizing Arguments Recognizing Arguments.
Other Info on Making Arguments
Intro to Logic: the tools of the trade You need to be able to: Recognize an argument when you see one (in media, articles, people’s claims). Organize arguments.
Deduction and Induction
BASIC CONCEPTS OF ARGUMENTS
The ubiquity of logic One common example of reasoning  If I take an umbrella, I can prevent getting wet by rain  I don’t want to get myself wet by rain.
Copyright © 2015, 2011, 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 1, Unit 1D, Slide 1 Thinking Critically 1.
Lecture 3 Inductive and Abductive Arguments Li Jianhui
Persuasion Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 4 ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF.
Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.
BUS 290: Critical Thinking for Managers
Persuasive Appeals Logos AP LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION.
Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS
Phil 148 Chapter 3A. Violating Conversational Rules Often, violating a conversational rule draws attention to a specific use of language for a specific.
CHAPTER 9 THINKING CRITICALLY IN THIS CHAPTER YOU WILL LEARN: What it means to think critically, and why it is important What facts and opinions are, and.
Critical Thinking. Critical thinkers use reasons to back up their claims. What is a claim? ◦ A claim is a statement that is either true or false. It must.
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
Chapter 32: How to Read an Essay. General Questions (pp ) What does the word, phrase, clause, or sentence mean? Is the claim true? Are the claims.
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
CHAPTER 9 CONSTRUCTING ARGUMENTS. ARGUMENTS A form of thinking in which certain reasons are offered to support conclusion Arguments are Inferences - Decide.
Chapter 23: Enthymemes, Argument Chains, and Other Hazards.
Sentence (syntactically Independent grammatical unit) QuestionCommandStatement “This is a class in logic.” “I enjoy logic.” “Today is Friday.”
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
What is an argument? An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." Huh? Three.
Free Will and Determinism Chapter Three Think pp
© 2009 McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights reserved.1 Chapters1 & 2.
Informal Fallacies “A Short Catalog of Informal Fallacies”
Part One: Assessing the Inference, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.
Text Table of Contents #4: What are the Reasons?.
Chapter 1 Logic and Proof.
Chapter 7: Induction.
Chapter 3 What are the reasons?.
Chapter 2 Sets and Functions.
Valid and Invalid Arguments
What is Inductive Reasoning?
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Critical Thinking and Arguments
SELECTING DEBATE PATTERNS, ATTACKING FALLACIES, & REFUTATION
Identifying/ Reconstructing Arguments
Critical Thinking Lecture 1 What is Critical Thinking?
Chapter 9: Successful Paragraphs
Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13
The second Meeting Basic Terms in Logic.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Overview Philosophy & logic.
Introduction to Logic PHIL 240 Sections
Syllogism, Enthymeme, and Logical Fallacies
Anselm & Aquinas December 23, 2005.
Logical Inferences: A set of premises accompanied by a suggested conclusion regardless of whether or not the conclusion is a logical consequence of the.
Arguments.
Building Argument and Integrating Evidence
The Power of Critical Thinking
Natural Deduction.
Making Sense of Arguments
Critical Thinking.
II. Analyzing Arguments
Common Logical Fallacies
Philosophy and Logic Section 4.3
Elements of an Argument
Syllogisms and Enthymemes.
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Avoiding Ungrounded Assumptions
Presentation transcript:

Chapter 8: Recognizing Arguments

Premise Indicators (pp. 58-59) Some words tend to show that a statement is a premise of an argument. Premise indicators include: since, for, because, given (that), due to, inasmuch as, as, assuming (that), insofar as, *may be deduced from, *is shown by, *is entailed by, * may be derived from (Conclusions precede starred indicators.)

Conclusion Indicators (p. 59) Some words tend to show that a statement is the conclusion of an argument. Conclusion indicators include: thus, therefore, so, consequently, wherefore, ergo, we may conclude that, it follows that, it is entailed that, we may infer that, accordingly, whence, it follows that, *is a reason to believe that, *is a reason to hold that, *is evidence that, *implies that, *means (that). (Premises precede starred indicators.)

Indicator Words and Truth (p. 60) As indicator words they assume the phrase ‘it is true that’. The Faraday passage in Chapter 5 uses many of the indicator words in the context of an explanation. Some words have uses that have nothing to do with arguments or explanations. ‘Since’ can show time. ‘For’ can indicate a gift or dedication.

When Elements are Missing (pp. 61-62) When indicator words are absent Find the conclusion and ask, “What reasons are given for me to accept the conclusion as true?” The order in which the premises and conclusion are presented is irrelevant.

When Elements are Missing (pp. 61-62) When premises or the conclusion is unstated (enthymemes) Arguments that are not completely stated sometimes have greater rhetorical force. Arguments that are incompletely stated sometimes hide the fact that the unstated premise is false. You should always ask whether there is a context in which the unstated premise would be true. You’ll want a real-life example. My favorite is the Nook passage in Dr. Seuss’s One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish. The students always find it amusing.

Distinguishing arguments from explanations (pp. 62-63) Premises are known or assumed before the conclusion is known. In an explanation the explanandum is always known before the explanans. “I did such-and-such because …” is almost always an explanation. “I believe such-and-such because …” can be either an explanation or an argument.

Distinguishing Inductive from Deductive Arguments (pp. 64-65) Can adding a premise strengthen the evidence for the conclusion? If adding a premise of the same level of generality will strengthen the argument, the argument is inductive. The inductive/valid deductive distinction is exclusive and exhaustive. Nonetheless, by suggesting that there is a missing premise, you can convert what would otherwise be an inductive argument into a valid deductive argument (although its premises might not be true). Any inductive argument can be converted into a valid deductive argument by assuming a conditional (if … then …) statement in which the antecedent (if clause) is a conjunction of the premises and the consequent (then clause) is the conclusion.

The Principle of Charity (pp. 66-67) Always state another person’s argument in the strongest way the verbiage will allow. Being “charitable” in this way allows you to avoid being charged with the straw person fallacy (Chapter 29). This is not an “anything goes” principle. If you have to bend over backwards to show that the argument is plausible, you are giving an implicit criticism of the manner in which the argument is stated.