Today Evaluating Reasoning Reasoning and Evidence Fallacies Evidence Discuss the midterm and review.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Argumentation.
Advertisements

Part I: Mill’s Methods redux
Copyright © 2008, Terry Hudson Session 3. Copyright © 2008, Terry Hudson Chapter 2 – Argument Coordination Relationship between arguer and recipient as.
Welcome to Dave Penner’s Presentation on Inductive Reasoning!
Characteristics Generate as many characteristics of critical thinking and a critical thinker as possible.
Logic and Reasoning Panther Prep North Central High School.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 11 Evaluating Causal Arguments.
Standardizing Arguments Premise 1: New Mexico offers many outdoor activities. Premise 2: New Mexico has rich history of Native Americans and of Spanish.
4 Thinking Critically. 2 2 Learning Outcomes The student will learn techniques for: Interpreting written texts. Participating in class discussions about.
TODAY’S GOALS Learn advanced strategies for addressing counterarguments Finalize preparations for the class debate.
©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 16 Thinking and Speaking Critically.
LogicandEvidence Scientific argument. Logic Reasoning –Deductive –Inductive.
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.
Building Logical Arguments. Critical Thinking Skills Understand and use principles of scientific investigation Apply rules of formal and informal logic.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 9 Evaluating Analogical Arguments.
Implied Implied – indicated or suggested Stated Stated –declared specifically or definitely CAUSE Effect.
PERSUASIONANDARGUMENT Chapter 15 Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2009 This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following.
Persuasion Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. Inductive reasoning.
TODAY’S GOALS Learn advanced strategies for addressing counterarguments Continue developing preparations for the class debate.
ASK QUESTIONS!!! During the next 45 – 90 minutes, I will present the main points of each chapter. Presented in terms of questions you should be able to.
Deductive Argument- If reasons are true Conclusion must be true.
Chapter 31: Fallacies of Weak Induction. Appeal to Authority (pp ) The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when someone is taken to be an authority.
Today’s Quote Use soft words and hard arguments English Proverb.
Debate: Reasoning. Claims & Evidence Review Claims are statements that serve to support your conclusion. Evidence is information discovered through.
Logical Fallacies. Syllogism (not a fallacy) A logical argument presented in terms of two statements and a conclusion which must be true if the two statements.
Grading Criteria for Assigment 1 Structure – –sense of time, present and past –conflict with two distinct sides –description of cause of conflict –shared.
Eng 111 Dana Frierson Fall Types of Reasoning (Logic) n Deductive u Inferring particular “fact” from general assumptions u General to specific n.
China Debate Education Network: Elements of Arguments: Linking Evidence to Claims.
Inductive Generalizations Induction is the basis for our commonsense beliefs about the world. In the most general sense, inductive reasoning, is that in.
Reason: as a Way of Knowing Richard van de Lagemaat, Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma (Cambridge: CUP, 2005)
PERSUASION. “Everybody Hates Chris”
EVIDENCE Definition???? Definition???? Support for a claim that is discovered from experience or outside authority (page 112) Support for a claim that.
Section 2-3 Deductive Reasoning. Types of Reasoning:
Reasoning. Inductive and Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning is concerned with reasoning from “specific instances to some general conclusion.” Deductive.
Lecture 8: Arguing from Evidence 1. Using evidence to support your arguments 2. Testing your arguments.
Chapter 5 Deductive / Inductive reasoning Fallacies false analogy Ad hominem Circular reasoning hasty generalization slippery slope Straw figure.
Chapter 10 (a deliberate attempt to influence the thought and behavior of others through the use of personal, psychological, and logical appeals)
© 2005 Pearson Education Inc. Publishing as Longman Chapter 12: Reading Arguments Active Reading Skills, 1/e Kathleen McWhorter PowerPoints by Gretchen.
Chapter 10 Lecture Notes Causal Inductive Arguments.
Argumentation.
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.
TODAY’S GOALS Continue developing preparations for the class debate Learn advanced strategies for addressing counterarguments.
Fallacy An error of reasoning based on faulty use of evidence or incorrect interpretation of facts.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze and evaluate inductive arguments.
Effective Persuasion Avoiding Logical Fallacies. Avoid Logical Fallacies These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your.
Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.
Reason Pt. 2. Inductive Reasoning Induction moves from the particular to the general. As a result, it involves generalizing: moving from observable facts.
Rhetorical Proofs and Fallacies Week 10 – Wednesday, October 28.
LOGICAL FALLACIES. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc “After this, therefore because of this.”
The Reasoning Process. Learning Objectives After reading the chapter, you should be able to: 1. Identify characteristics of reasoning in the media age.
Structures of Reasoning Models of Argumentation. Review Syllogism All syllogisms have 3 parts: Major Premise- Minor Premise Conclusion Categorical Syllogism:
EVALUATING ARGUMENTS AND BUILDING ARGUMENTS ENGL 121 Howard Community College.
Chapter 7 Nature of evidence types of evidence internal / external consistency recency/relevancy expertise / bias Fallacies of evidence non-comparable.
The Art and Craft of Persuasion Based upon: Moser, Joyce, and Ann Watters, ed. Creating America: Reading and Writing Arguments, 3 rd Ed. New Jersey:Prentice.
1 WRITING THE ACADEMIC PAPER ——Logic and Argument Tao Yang
TODAY’S GOALS Introduced basic and advanced strategies for counterarguments Continue planning for the class debate.
THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT. THE MAIN CONCERN OF LOGIC Basically in logic we deal with ARGUMENTS. Mainly we deal with learning of the principles with which.
Argumentation.
Logical Arguments an argument can be defined as a:
Developing your arguments
Ethics and Computing CS 4100
Persuasive Speaking Structures and Appeals
The second Meeting Basic Terms in Logic.
C/Maj Nicholas Schroder
Looking for false logic in someone’s argument
A Guide to Logical Fallacies
Argumentation Strategies
Chapter 8 Inductive Reasoning.
Section 3-6 Inductive Reasoning.
A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24
Presentation transcript:

Today Evaluating Reasoning Reasoning and Evidence Fallacies Evidence Discuss the midterm and review

Quasilogial arguments: arguments that imply a formal syllogistic structure (deductive) Categorical syllogisms: –all A is B –C is A –therefore C is B Disjunctive syllogisms: –either A or B –not A –therefore B Counter-strategies –draft these out as full syllogism to identify weak points –in categorical syllogisms, you can attack the holistic nature of the category –in disjunctive syllogisms, you can attack the binary choice

analogy: because two objects resemble each other in known ways, they will also resemble each other in unknown respects Literal analogies: compare two objects of the same class in order to reveal an unknown –X has attributes A, B,C, and D –Y has attributes A, B, and C –Therefore Y will probably demonstrate D as well Figurative analogies: compare two objects of different classes –X has attributes A, B,C –Y is like X –Therefore Y will probably demonstrate A, B, and C Counter-strategies: question the degree of similarity –quality: X and Y’s similarities do not support your conclusion –quantity: while x and y are similar in this regard they are more often dissimilar –produce counter-examples

generalization: what is true of certain members of a class will also be true for other members or for the class as a whole. arguments from example: since this example holds true, the class holds true (inductive) –A is B –A is a member of X –Therefore X is B Counter strategies: question the relationship of the part to the whole –Quality: question the accuracy of the example: does this example warrant your conclusion? C is also a member of X, yet C is not B –Quantity: question the representativeness of the example C, D, E, F, G, H are all members of X and are not B, therefore A is not the norm –produce counter-examples

Cause: a cause or groups of causes brings about a specific effect. Necessary condition must be present for the effect to result, but it is not the cause. –A is necessary for B to occur (but does not directly cause B) Sufficient condition causes the effect. –A causes B Counter strategies: questions the consequential relationship –Quality: attack the nature of the cause-effect relationship Does A always produce B? –Quantity: can other causes trigger a similar effect? C can cause also cause B –produce counter-examples

coexistential: deduction from an observed trait to an unobserved trait Structure –I see A –A implies the existence of B –therefore B exists Counter-strategies –quality: is the relationship between seen and unseen consistent and reciprocal? Can we move back and forth within this argument? Does A always imply the existence of B? Does the existence of B always coincide with the presence of A? –Quantity: is there enough A to really suggest the presence of B? –produce counter-examples

Dissociation: decouple one concept from another Structure –A is not B –A is better than B Counter-strategies –A is B –B is not always or necessarily better than A –produce counter-examples

Reasoning Fallacies- Post hoc –A occurred after B, therefore A is the cause of B Slippery slope –If A occurs, all hell will break loose Single-cause –A caused B (when B was caused by A, B, C, D, etc.)

Evidence fallacies Begging the question –A is the cause of B, therefore B is the result of A Non sequitur –A is true because of X (where X has nothing directly to do with A)

Evidence Reliability Expertise Objectivity Consistency –External consistency: the source matches up with other sources –Internal consistency: the source remains consistent Recency Relevance Access Accuracy

List the top 5 most credible sources. 1.Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York: Scholastic Inc. 2.Sports Illustrated 3.The official website of the White House. 4.The Tonight Show with Jay Leno 5.Ideda, K. & Huckfeldt, R. (2001). Political communication and 6.disagreement among citizens in Japan and the United States. Political Behavior, 23(1), An interview with President George W. Bush, dated September 11th, An interview with Crystal Gould [my roommate in college] dated November 10th, The Old Testament. 10.The Koran. 11.The Book of Morman. 12.The New York Times 13.The Daily 14.Newsweek 15.Playboy 16.The official website of Buffy the Vampire Slayer 17.Nova [PBS sponsored television show]