Recognising and re-formatting everyday arguments  LI:  To recognise the premise, conclusion and structure of everyday arguments.  To be able to re-write.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

-- in other words, logic is

Advertisements

Test the validity of this argument: Some lawyers are judges. Some judges are politicians. Therefore, some lawyers are politicians. A. Valid B. Invalid.

Four Rules of Aristotelian Logic 1. Rule of Identity: A is A 2. Rule of Non-Contradiction: A is not (-A) 3. Rule of Excluded Middle: Either A or (-A)

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

Deductive Arguments: Categorical Logic

Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 4 Diagramming Arguments.

Lecture 9: Analyzing Arguments – Diagramming Short Arguments.

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1 Critical Thinking.

Critical Thinking Value Conflicts & Assumptions

My Favorite Russian Joke

Connectors. Using connectors will allow you to express your ideas better, and allow your writing to flow. Connectors can be classified by grammar (coordinating.

Classifying Arguments Deductive (valid/invalid) Inductive (strong/weak) Arguments may be divided into two types: in which the intention is certainty of.

Academic writing i June 12th Academic writing i June 12th 2012.

Philosophy 1100 Today: Hand Back “Nail that Claim” Exercise! & Discuss

Assessing and Developing Argument ©

Argumentation - 1 We often encounter situations in which someone is trying to persuade us of a point of view by presenting reasons for it. We often encounter.

BASIC CONCEPTS OF ARGUMENTS

Lecture 3 Investing in yourself. What is Learning? How do you know that you have learned something? What is learning? What do you have to do to learn.

Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning. Objectives Use a Venn diagram to determine the validity of an argument. Complete a pattern with the most likely possible.

Introduction to Proofs

Chapter 1: Lecture Notes What Is an Argument? (and What is Not?)

Online Class by Satyadhar Joshi

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.

Conditional Statements Lesson 2-1. Conditional Statements have two parts: Hypothesis ( denoted by p) and Conclusion ( denoted by q)

Breaking Down An Arguments Into Propositions

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.

Thinking Mathematically Arguments and Truth Tables.

Argument Diagramming Part I

Cause & Effect. A cause and effect relationship  There is always something going on. This is your event.  The reason it happened is your cause.  What.

Entry Task Write down your age Multiply it by 10 Add 8 to the product Double that answer and subtract 16 Divide the result by 20 Explain what you notice.

A conjunction that joins two similarly or equal words or phrases or clauses within a sentence. The coordinating conjunctions are and, but, for, nor, or,

LINCing List the parts Indicate a reminding word Note a lincing story Create a lincing picture.

Talk Assessment. Higher English Assessment Overview UNIT ASSESSMENT Creation and Production Analysis and Evaluation Analysis and Evaluation Assessment.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize, analyze, and evaluate deductive arguments.

2.3 Methods of Proof.

INTEGRATED MATH 3. OBJECTIVES: 1)Recognize the role of inductive reasoning in making conjectures and recognize the limitations of inductive reasoning.

MATHEMATICAL REASONING MATHEMATICAL REASONING. STATEMENT A SENTENCE EITHER TRUE OR FALSE BUT NOT BOTH A SENTENCE EITHER TRUE OR FALSE BUT NOT BOTH.

Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 12. Our Learning  Fallacy Reminder  Summary following Homework NAB  Class NAB.

2-3 Biconditionals and Definitions Objective: To write biconditionals and recognize good definitions.

If then Therefore It is rainingthe ground is wet It is raining the ground is wet.

Lecture Notes © 2008 McGraw Hill Higher Education© 2008 McGraw Hill Higher Education 1 Critical Thinking Chapter 5 Logical Fallacies I Fallacies of Relevance.

Starter Have a look at the worksheet you have been given on the way in. There is one mistake in each of the sentences – either a word has been spelt incorrectly,

Presumption, Ambiguity, & Illicit Transference 2/17/2016 C.G. Parker | PHIL

Conditional Statements I CAN… Write conditional, converse, and biconditional statements.

Uniqueness Quantifier ROI for Quantified Statement.

Deductive and Inductive reasoning

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.

Capital Punishment Lesson 3

Critical Thinking Lecture 1 What is Critical Thinking?

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

Philosophy Essay Writing

From Chapter 4 Philosophy: Questions and Theories

MAT 142 Lecture Video Series

Philosophy 1100 Class #8 Title: Critical Reasoning

LI: To recognise that sounds get fainter as the distance from the sound source increases. Working scientifically: LI: To record findings using simple.

Making Sense of Arguments

Critical Thinking.

II. Analyzing Arguments

Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 1b What is Philosophy? (part 2)

Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Arguments in Sentential Logic

Concluding Paragraphs

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

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

Starting out with formal logic

Hidden or Suppressed Premises

Presentation transcript:

Recognising and re-formatting everyday arguments  LI:  To recognise the premise, conclusion and structure of everyday arguments.  To be able to re-write these in argument form.

Venn Diagrams RUSSIAN GREEK LATIN 1. Find similarities between: a)Greek and Latin b)Greek and Russian c)Russian and Latin d)All languages 2. Create one true statement from this diagram

GREEKRUSSIAN LATIN Russian + Greek Latin + Russian Greek, Russian + Latin Greek + Latin

Indicators We have already looked at words which may connect or related premises:  ‘If…then’  ‘Or’  ‘And’  ‘All/Some’

In conclusion…. We can also used language to help us identify the conclusion in an everyday argument, for example:  So…  Thus…  For these reasons…  This shows us that…  This is why….

Watch out for a change of phrase… 1.We should not accept what the Prime Minister has said. David Cameron has got is wrong on so many occasions. 2.Capital Punishment should be reintroduced in this country for football hooligans. The death penalty should stop them from causing mayhem.  When re-writing everyday arguments you should alter the language, matching phrases, to make the structure of the argument completely clear.

Inference Bar The line we draw to divide premises and the conclusion. When re-writing ordinary language arguments, we may replace a ‘so’ or ‘therefore’ with an inference bar:

Method Method: List the sentences in the argument Identify the main conclusion Identify the premises Identify any hidden premises Find the structure of the argument (phrases) HOW WILL WE REMEMBER THIS?

Example 1  If Highers were difficult, lots of people would fail them. The pass rates are very high. So our exams are easier than we are being told. It’s not like it was in my day! 1.If Higher were difficult, lots of people would fail them. 2.The pass rates are very high. 3.So our exams are easier than we are being told. 4.It’s not like it was in my day. Notice the ‘so’? What about numbers 1, 2 + 4? We need to alter phrases to match up our premises – why? (p) If Highers were difficult, lots of people would fail them. (p) If Highers were difficult THEN lots of people would fail them. (p) The pass rates are very high (c) Our exams are easier than we are being told. (c) It is not the case that Highers are difficult.

Example 2  The police chief (this his squad): Look, only two people knew where the informer was hiding. Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was, or the new District Attorney did. The DA must be the leak. 1.Look, only two people knew where the informer was hiding. 2.Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was, or the new District Attorney did. 3.The DA must be the leak. Notice the ‘must be’ What about 1+ 2? Are we happy with the phrasing of the premise? Any hidden or implicit premises? Are we happy with the phrasing of the conclusion? Does it match the premise? (p) Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was, or the new District Attorney did (p) Either Lieutenant Kojak told the hitman where he was or the new District Attorney told the hitman where the informer was hiding? (p) It is not the case that Lt. Kojack told the hitman where the informer was hiding. (c) The DA must be the leak. (c) The District Attorney told the hitman where the informer was hiding.

Tasks p.33 (a) – (g) p.36 (a) – (f) p. 29 (a) – (g)