1. You will read a test story in which you should treat all the information in the story as true and accurate. 2. A set of statements about the story, follow it. Please read the statements and work out whether you find them: True, False or unsure. T stands for a definitely True statement about the information given in the story. F stands for a definitely False statement about the information given in the story. ? stands for a statement that could be true or false but based on the information in the story, you cannot tell which, for certain. So you are unsure to some degree.

A couple decided to go boating on a sunny summer's day. He packed the fishing rods in the speed boat, then asked his wife if the gas tank was full. She said, "Yes, the gas tank is full." They drove down to the jetty and launched the boat. The couple then sped out onto the sea in the speed boat. After going for about ten minutes the speed boat's motor spluttered then stopped. They arrived back at the shore several hours later.

because it states so in the text

They could have in those first few minutes before the motor failed and caught something. Or they could have fished later

Possible, but it is also possible that the engine overheated, etc.

Because she may have taken someone else's word on it from a previous boat trip. Or she could have misunderstood him and thought he was asking about the car's gas tanks, etc.

because it states this in the text

The story doesn't say this. He could have checked for himself.

The story does not say it was an outboard motor.

It sped out onto the sea, not a lake.

They may have rowed back but they may have got it started again, later. Or, they could have waited for a tow

because they decided to go boating but the story does not actually say that they actually intended to go fishing even though they put fishing rods in the boat. They may have just been put there to return to friends.

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc "after this, therefore because (on account) of this" False Cause: Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning Logical Fallacy

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc Roosters crow just before the sun rises. Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise. jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences. Superstition

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc Fr om With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc "I can't help but think that you are the cause of this problem; we never had any problem with the furnace until you moved into the apartment."

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc * A occurred, then B occurred. * Therefore, A caused B. Avoiding A will prevent B.

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc To avoid the post hoc fallacy, you need to separate facts from inferences/conclusions/interpretat ions. Fact: The Grand Canyon exists. Inference: How it got here.

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? Post Hoc To avoid the post hoc fallacy, you need to give some explanation of the process. If you say that A causes B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just A came first and B came later.

Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? …[E]vidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work. For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business. The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%. Post Hoc ·Identify the fallacy. ·Fix the fallacy (How could this process have happened?)

Mr. Gosane, whose first name is Fred, has behaved abnormally for the past week. He has missed work because of this. His wife Pat, who has had enough of this, decided to call their doctor. Later that day, the only car parked in Fred's driveway is a bright red car with the letters "Dr A. Korzybski" painted on it. Upstairs in Fred's bedroom, a light is on.

Post Hoc Evaluate the chain Aim: How do you avoid common errors in logic when doing cause-consequence analysis? O f course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation. Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.