Syllogisms.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Sec 2-3 Concept: Deductive Reasoning Objective: Given a statement, use the laws of logic to form conclusions and determine if the statement is true through.

Advertisements

KEY TERMS Argument: A conclusion together with the premises that support it. Premise: A reason offered as support for another claim. Conclusion: A claim.

Rules of Inferences Section 1.5. Definitions Argument: is a sequence of propositions (premises) that end with a proposition called conclusion. Valid Argument:

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

Logos Formal Logic.

Copyright © Peter Cappello Logical Inferences Goals for propositional logic 1.Introduce notion of a valid argument & rules of inference. 2.Use inference.

Logic in Everyday Life.

Deductive Reasoning Chapter 2 Lesson 4.

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.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING MOVES FROM A GENERALIZATION THAT IS TRUE OR SELF-EVIDENT TO A MORE SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DEDUCTIVE REASONING.

DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.

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

DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. PROBLEM SOLVING Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.

Do Now. Law of Syllogism ◦ We can draw a conclusion when we are given two true conditional statements. ◦ The conclusion of one statement is the hypothesis.

Logic and Reasoning.

Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying.

Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning The process of logical reasoning from general principles to specific instances based on the assumed truth of.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Geometry 2-3 Law of Syllogism The Law of Syllogism allows you to draw conclusions from two conditional statements. Law of Syllogism If p  q and q  r.

Chapter 14: Categorical Syllogisms. Elements of a Categorical Syllogism (pp ) Categorical syllogisms are deductive arguments. Categorical syllogisms.

Elements of Argument Logic vs. Rhetoric. Syllogism Major Premise: Advertising of things harmful to our health should be legally banned. Minor Premise:

 Induction is the process of drawing a general conclusion from incomplete evidence.  You consider evidence you have seen or heard to draw a conclusion.

Logic: The Language of Philosophy. What is Logic? Logic is the study of argumentation o In Philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions, but there.

LOGIC: SYLLOGISMS. Syllogism: A set of statements called premises, which lead to one logical conclusion.

Do now Can you make sure that you have finished your Venn diagrams from last lesson. Can you name 5 famous mathematicians (including one that is still.

Weapon of Legal Instruction

Copyright © Peter Cappello

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive reasoning.

Arguments with Quantified Statements

a valid argument with true premises.

Deductive and Inductive REASONING

Syllogism – logical reasoning from inarguable premises; the conclusion is unarguable if the syllogism is structured correctly. Example: Because Socrates.

5 Categorical Syllogisms

Argumentation and Persuasion

02-2: Vocabulary inductive reasoning conjecture counterexample

Chapter 3: Reality Assumptions

Truth Tables How to build them

Chapter 3 Philosophy: Questions and theories

Evaluate Deductive Reasoning and Spot Deductive Fallacies

Sec. 2.3: Apply Deductive Reasoning

3 Logic The Study of What’s True or False or Somewhere in Between.

2.4 Deductive Reasoning.

Geometry Review PPT Finnegan 2013

2-3 Deductive Reasoning Objectives:

Logical Inferences: A set of premises accompanied by a suggested conclusion regardless of whether or not the conclusion is a logical consequence of the.

Reasoning, Logic, and Position Statements

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

DEDUCTIVE REASONING Forensic Science.

Vocabulary inductive reasoning conjecture counterexample

3.5 Symbolic Arguments.

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING Section 1.1. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions.

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

The most important idea in logic: Validity of an argument.

Constructing a Logical Argument

Logical Fallacies.

The Persuasive Speech Ch. 24.

To solve problems by looking for a pattern

Phil2303 intro to logic.

2-4 Deductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning: Using facts, rules, definitions, or properties to reach logical conclusions. Law of Detachment: A form.

Syllogisms and Enthymemes.

SUMMARY Logic and Reasoning.

Syllogisms Basic Argumentation.

2-4 Deductive Reasoning Vocab:

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

DEDUCTIVE vs. INDUCTIVE REASONING

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.

Presentation transcript:

Syllogisms

What is a Syllogism? A basic tool of logic You use principles of logic in your daily life Valid- logically correct True- factually correct A syllogism may be valid but not true.

Premises Major Premise- a generalized statement about a group that may or may not be true. Minor Premise- a generalized statement about a person that may or may not be true. Conclusion- the addition of a major and minor premise. Major Premise + Minor Premise = Conclusion

Examples All people are mortal. (major premise) John Proctor is a person. (minor premise) Therefore, John Proctor is mortal. (Conclusion) Since the major premise states that all people are mortal and John Proctor is a person. John Proctor must be mortal.

More Examples All people who do not know the commandments are witches. (major premise) Goody Osburn does not know the commandments. (minor premise) Therefore, Goody Osburn is a witch. (conclusion) Goody Osburn does not know the commandments, therefore, she must be a witch.