Chapter 1, Unit D Analyzing Arguments.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Basic Terms in Logic Michael Jhon M. Tamayao.

Advertisements

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

Types of Arguments Inductive Argument: An argument in which the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the conclusion is probably true. Strong.

1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.

1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength and Cogency Goal: Learn the terms used to evaluate inductive and deductive arguments.

Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 5. ” All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” Ambrose Bierce “ Those who lack the courage.

Deduction: the categorical syllogism - 1 Logic: evaluating deductive arguments - the syllogism 4 A 5th pattern of deductive argument –the categorical syllogism.

Other Info on Making Arguments

Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions and Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.

So far we have learned about:

Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Thinking Critically.

Building Logical Arguments. Critical Thinking Skills Understand and use principles of scientific investigation Apply rules of formal and informal logic.

DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Basic Argumentation.

Copyright © 2015, 2011, 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 1, Unit 1D, Slide 1 Thinking Critically 1.

Deduction, Induction, & Truth Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.

GLE Explore the concept of premises, including false premises. Intro to Logic.

Logic and Philosophy Alan Hausman PART ONE Sentential Logic Sentential Logic.

0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) December 23, 2005.

Deduction, Validity, Soundness Lecture II – 01/25/11.

STATEMENTS (True or False) = 11 9 is an integer 8 > 12 Sum of angles in triangle = 260 NOT A STATEMENT x + y Come here! How old are you?

Holt McDougal Geometry 2-3 Using Deductive Reasoning to Verify Conjectures Determine if each conjecture is true or false. If false, provide a counterexample.

Unit 1D Analyzing Arguments. TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS Inductive Deductive Arguments come in two basic types:

Logic in Everyday Life.

Reasoning and Conditional Statements Advanced Geometry Deductive Reasoning Lesson 1.

Deductive vs. Inductive Logic This course is about deductive logic. But it is important to know something about inductive logic.

Reasoning and Critical Thinking Validity and Soundness 1.

 ESSENTIAL QUESTION  How can you use reasoning to solve problems?  Scholars will  Use the Law of Syllogism  Use the Law of Detachment UNIT 01 – LESSON.

Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.

Chapter 3: MAKING SENSE OF ARGUMENTS

MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Categorical Syllogisms We will go over diagramming Arguments in class. Fall Term 2006 North Central.

HOW TO CRITIQUE AN ARGUMENT

0 Validity & Invalidity (Exercises) All dogs have two heads. 2. All tigers are dogs. ___________________________________ 3. All tigers have two.

Philosophical Method  Logic: A Calculus For Good Reason  Clarification, Not Obfuscation  Distinctions and Disambiguation  Examples and Counterexamples.

The construction of a formal argument

C HAPTER Using deductive reasoning. O BJECTIVES Students will be able to: Apply the Law of Detachment and the Law of Syllogism in logical reasoning.

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Thinking Critically 1C Discussion Paragraph 1 web 88. State Politics 89. US Presidents 90. Web Venn Diagrams.

Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual

Categorical Propositions Chapter 5. Deductive Argument A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth.

Part One: Assessing the Inference, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.

UOP CRT 205 Week 7 Assignment Argument Evaluation Check this A+ tutorial guideline at

Chapter 7: Induction.

Types of Arguments Inductive Argument: An argument in which the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the conclusion is probably true. Strong.

Deductive reasoning.

Deductive Reasoning, Postulates, and Proofs

Chapter 3 Basic Logical Concepts (Please read book.)

a valid argument with true premises.

WEEK 3 VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS Valid argument: A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion is necessarily and logically drawn from the premises. The.

Chapter 1: Good and Bad Reasoning

What makes a Good Argument?

Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories

Rules and fallacies Formal fallacies.

Evaluating truth tables

Validity and Soundness

Deductive Reasoning: The process of thought through which a conclusion is reached through a set of premises (assumptions that something is true).

3.5 Symbolic Arguments.

Math Humor Q: How is a geometry classroom like the United Nations?

Making Sense of Arguments

Thinking Critically Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.

Notes 2.3 Deductive Reasoning.

8C Truth Tables, 8D, 8E Implications 8F Valid Arguments

SUMMARY Logic and Reasoning.

ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.

3.5 Symbolic Arguments.

If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.

Identifying & Ordering

Consider the following TRUE conditional statement…

Presentation transcript:

Chapter 1, Unit D Analyzing Arguments

Essential Question How do we determine whether an argument is well constructed and compelling?

Inductive Argument Specific premises, general conclusion Conclusion cannot be proven true/false Evaluated on STRENGTH (but this is using personal judgement) Strong: compelling case for conclusion Weak: conclusion not well supported by premises

Inductive Argument Example 1 (from #24) Premise: If I pay more for a pair of running shoes, they last longer Premise: If I pay more for an automobile, it requires fewer repairs Conclusion: Quality goes with higher prices

Inductive Argument Example 2 (from #26) Premise: Apes and baboons have hair and they are mammals Premise: Mice and rats have hair and they are mammals Premise: Tigers and lions have hair and they are mammals Conclusion: Animals with hair are mammals

Deductive Argument General premise, specific conclusion Valid: Does the conclusion follow necessarily from premises? No personal judgement Nothing to do with truth of premise or conclusion Sound: Are the premises true?

Deductive Argument: invalid but true conclusion Example 3 (from #30) Premise: All dairy products contain protein Premise: Soybeans contain protein Conclusion: Soybeans are dairy products

Deductive Argument: invalid argument Example 4 (from 36) Premise: No country is an island Premise: Iceland is a country Conclusion: Iceland is not an island

Conditional Deductive Argument: Affirming the Hypothesis (Valid) If p, then q (p is true so q is true) Example 5 (from #38) Premise: If it is a bird, then its young are hatched from eggs Premise: Condor are birds Conclusion: Condor chicks are hatched from eggs

Conditional Deductive Argument: Affirming the conclusion Invalid) If p, then q (q is true so p is true) Example 6 (from #40) Premise: If you live in Boston, you live in Massachusetts Premise: Bruno lives in Massachusetts Conclusion: Bruno lives in Boston

Conditional Deductive Argument: Denying the Hypothesis (Invalid) If p, then q (p is not true so q is not true) Example 7 (from #39) Premise: If you live in Boston, you live in Massachusetts Premise: Amanda does not live in Boston Conclusion: Amanda does not live in Massachusetts

Conditional Deductive Argument: Denying the Conclusion(Valid) If p, then q (q is not true, so p is not true) Example 8 (from #41) Premise: If a figure is a triangle, then it has three sides Premise: Squares have four sides Conclusion: Squares are not triangles