2. Terms related to Argument and Argument Evaluation

Argument

A coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view; (an examination of ideas and beliefs via reasoning) With this you are trying to persuade others of an idea or a course of action.

Premise

A reason that is used in an argument to support a conclusion, a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

Conclusion

The part of an argument that the premises are meant to demonstrate by means of evidence or justification.

Inference

An idea or conclusion that's drawn from evidence and reasoning. We learn about some things by experiencing them first-hand, but we gain other knowledge by understanding things based on what is already known/the context. When you make this, you're reading between the lines or just looking carefully at the facts and coming to conclusions.

Inductive argument

The use of collected instances of evidence of something specific to support a general conclusion. This reasoning is used to show the likelihood that an argument will prove true in the future. Making specific observations (the evidence) to make assumptions that induce a generalization.

The more evidence you accumulate, the more probable it is that the generalization is true.

Most errors involve oversimplifying either the evidence or the generalization.

Argument by authority

This relies on the testimony and reasoning of a credible source. This is an attempt to use expertise in a particular field to advance a particular belief. Ex. "I told you to, and I'm the parent," "The book says so," and "Trust me, I'm a professional"

Argument by cause

This reasoning attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between two events. This is a form of reasoning that argues that the interactions of two or more incidents are not merely coincidental but were actually related in some meaningful way. E.g. not studying for exam would increase chances of failing.

Argument by sign

This reasoning asserts that two or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other. This is in some ways a type of tightly linked cause and effect reasoning that has more certainty. This is used any time an argument generated utilizing one variable as proof of another.

E.g. the sun is rising = morning

Probability

Refers to the likelihood that an inductive argument with true premises will give a true conclusion.

Consistency

Lack of this in an argument means there are contrary or contradictory statements that are asserted to be true at the same time.

Falsifiability

is more or less synonymous with testability as it applies to testing that a hypothesis is incorrect. No amount of experimentation can prove that a hypothesis is correct but a single experiment can prove that it is incorrect. This is an important principle of science.

Corrigibility

Capable of being set right

Science as a "self-correcting" way of knowing

By doing research the researchers, over time, find the (objectivity) problems with their methods which leads to self-correction

Sufficiency

When an argument's premises provide enough support for its conclusion such that, if the premises are satisfactory, acceptance of its conclusion is rational.

Generalizability

A claim inferred from evidence. Using inductive reasoning, you make specific observations about your evidence and you induce a claim .The more evidence you accumulate, the more probable it is that this will be true.

Representativeness

You must have an accurate representation of the target population so that your sample reflects any variety that exists within it. E.g. If you are talking about students, then you should be polling a representative sample of students.

Representative sample

A sample that has the same distribution of all relevant characteristics as the whole population being considered.

Deductive argument

This reasoning is moving from the general to the particular, applying the generalization to a particular case. Syllogism is at the heart of this kind of reasoning.

Syllogism

The conventional way in which a deductive argument is displayed. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion derives logically and certainly from them. It is baked on two premises, of which the second one is derived from the first one.

Example: All human beings are mortal (Premise 1). I am a human being (Premise 2). Therefore, I am mortal (Conclusion).

Categorical Syllogism

The force of deductive reasoning depends on the reliability of the premises and the care taken to apply them in drawing conclusions. The reasoning process is valid if the premises lead logically to the conclusion.

Hypothetical Syllogism

Follows the reasoning of "if.. then..", if one premise is true then logically the conclusion will be true.

Disjunctive Syllogism

Works in the way of "either" ... "or", only one of the premises can be true.

Validity

In a deductive argument, this is the principle that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Valid argument

It is a deductive argument in which the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion; that is, it is impossible for the arguments premises to be true and its conclusion to be false.

Argument by analogy

This draws comparisons between different cases. If the two cases have enough relevant similarities, then our conclusions about one case should apply to the other case as well.

Abduction

To take away a logical assumption, explanation, inference, conclusion, hypothesis, or best guess from an observation or set of observations. Because the conclusion is merely a best guess, the conclusion that is drawn may or may not be true.

Intuition

That vague feeling that is captured by saying "I have a gut reaction to this". If you can't articulate why you feel like that, then no one else can evaluate the feeling, and you cannot use it to rationally convince others.

Rational persuasion

The use of an argument to cause another person to believe a conclusion. This does not mean we must deny that we are human beings with feelings and emotions. But what is important is that you don't let your emotions get in the way of your reasoning.

Logos

A rhetorical device that appeals to the audience's reason. The arguments are logically built up.

Pathos

A rhetorical device that appeals to the emotions, and tries for example to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic.

Ethos

A rhetorical device that appeals to the speaker's status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them

Fact

Empirical truth claims. Statements that are verifiable, (they can be proven false or right on the basis of evidence) are considered factual.

Reason (in the sense of a premise)

In constructing arguments, you'll be compiling a series of claims that consist of this. These are used in an argument to support a conclusion and are called premises.

Enthymeme

A logical argument that contains a conclusion but an implied premise. This type of reasoning is informal-in that the conclusion is reached based on implied reasoning rather than stated reasoning. Example: Pugs are mammals because they are dogs. Unstated premise: All dogs are mammals.

Missing premise

Is unstated but is required by the logical form of the argument. When adding this, you can only work with what is logically necessary to move from the premise to the conclusion.

Concealed premise

Is a premise that is required in order to reach the stated conclusion, but is not itself stated clearly in the argument. Without this assumption, the conclusion makes no sense, and the argument is invalid. Example: My bag of candies is better than yours because it has more sour pieces. Hidden: sour candy is better than other candy.

Independent premise

Each premise that by itself supports the conclusion. The greater the number of these you have, the stronger the argument becomes. Example: This studio is quiet. This studio is clean. This studio is close to my university. Therefore I want to rent this studio.

Dependent premise

Work together to support the conclusion. You have to examine them all together to assess their ability to offer support.

Example: Listening to this song, I can tell immediately that it will either be a huge success or an utter failure. The song will not be a huge success. Therefore it will be an utter failure.

Satisfactory premise

A premise that is true or that there is good reason to believe is true. Different factors that can help us determine if a premise is like this, are: expert authority, common knowledge, personal testimony etc.

Relevant premise

A premise that is included in a given argument (or sub-argument) and has bearing on whether the argument's conclusion should be accepted. It is related to step 2 of S testing and is connected to supporting the premises.

Positively relevant premise

A premise that is included in a given argument and suggests that the argument's conclusion should be accepted. Example: I am rich and have an expensive car.

Negatively relevant premise

A premise that is included in a given argument and suggests that the argument's conclusion should not be accepted. Example: I am poor and have an expensive car.

Irrelevant premise

A premise that is included in a given argument but has no bearing on whether the argument's conclusion should be accepted.

Missing conclusion

A conclusion that is unstated but it is required by the logical form of the argument. E.g.: "You like insanely high levels of caffeine and Brand X energy drink is insanely high in caffeine!!!". The conclusion is unstated in the previous example and should be "You should buy brand X energy drink". You must always present the conclusion and its supporting premises , if it seems these are not evident.

Explanation

a statement that makes something clear by describing it in more detail or by revealing relevant facts or ideas

Argument as artifact

An argument you can 'dissect', analyse and reveal (premise, conclusion, ...)

Argument as process

When an argument implies active participation in a dialogue oriented towards judgement, proof, resolution or persuasion with regard to a matter in which disagreement is either real or possible.

S-Test

This comes in the context of evaluation of an argument. In sum it consists of 3 steps:

Determine whether the argument's premises are satisfactory.

Determine whether the premises support the conclusion.

Determine whether the premises offer sufficient support to establish the conclusion.

Counter example

An example that refutes (or contradicts) a conclusion

Absurd example

This method is more effective than the counter example since it can be used with a broader range of weaknesses. Basically, it involves constructing an argument that is parallel to the weak argument, but which has true or plausible premises and an obviously false or absurd conclusion.

Random sample

A subset of the target population that stand an equal chance of being selected, to ensure that the participants are a representative sample (e.g. Tossing a coin, picking names out of a hat. Almost impossible to have a truly random sample, as a total list of the target population cannot truly be identified).

Target population

The group from which the sample is taken. The bigger the group, the higher the statistical power and generalization rates.

Personal Testimony

A statement made by an individual based on his or her personal experience. Satisfactory when the claim is plausible and the person is not known to be dishonest or unreliable.

Common Knowledge

The shared knowledge that is presupposed as background to an argument.

Relevant expert

An honest and reliable professional in a given area.

Unverifiable premise

A premise that can't be proven true or false. Cannot be used as substantial support in an argument, particularly not on its own.

Dialectical obligation

Although the arguer has given reasons or evidence for his conclusion, in a dialectical situation, that will not be enough. Arguer's attempt to initiate the process of rational persuasion and to give the audience reasons that justify the thesis, but if the audience is rational, it will not be won over simply by such tools.

argument by generalization

assumes that what is true of a sample of people is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/ population

Acceptability

Quality of being satisfactory and able to be agreed to or approved of.

- Matter of undisputed common knowledge

- Confirmed by one's own personal experience or observation

- Uncontroverted eyewitness testimony or from a relevant authority

- Reasonable assumption in the context of the argument

Statement

The expression of a single idea or concept; can be either true or false. Also known as a "proposition" or a "claim." To be complete it usually has two parts : the premises and the conclusion.

Premise indicator

A word or phrase that signals that there is a premise being offered. (Provide direction and guide you through arguments)

E.g. : Since, because, for the reason that, given that,...

Conclusion indicator

A word or phrase that signals that a conclusion is being offered. Typically, they immediately precede the conclusion, but occasionally, they will be found in the middle and sometimes even at the end! E.g. : So, Thus, Hence, it follows that, consequently, therefore,...

Rhetorical question

A question that has an implied answer and therefore functions as a statement.

Rhetoric

The term refers to the language that is used to inform, persuade, or motivate audiences. It uses language to appeal mainly to emotions, but also in some cases to shared values or logic. Examples of it can often be found in literature, politics, and advertising for specific emphasis and effect-incorporating a variety of figurative language techniques depending upon the desired result.

Evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Illative core of an argument

The special relationship that holds between premises or reasons and conclusion or thesis; it is not a purely abstract relation, but one that subsists in the mind of the arguer and of anyone trying to understand or evaluate the argument.

Dialectical tier of an argument

When an argument implies active participation in a dialogue oriented towards judgement, proof, resolution or persuasion with regard to a matter in which disagreement is either real or possible. We should pay attention that this is the broader context and space of interaction.

Explaining the weakness

When we detect weakness in an argument we follow two steps to explain and prove why their reasonings/claims are wrong. (see Google doc for the two steps)

Method of absurd examples

Another method of showing fallacy. Similar to counter examples but this can be applied to a wider range of weaknesses and is very effective.

We reconstruct an argument that is parallel to the weak. The parallel argument contains a true premise and an obvious/fake conclusion. This example must be similar to the original argument with its structure and the content itself.

Counter argument

an argument or set of reasons put forward to oppose an idea or theory developed in another argument.

Principle of charity

When interpreting someone's argument, we should always try to identify the best version of the argument that the author could plausibly have intended to put forward.

Assumptions

Premises for which no proof or evidence is offered.

Advocate's strategy

In an academic essay, the author acts as an advocate by advancing arguments that are aimed exclusively at defending a main conclusion—or, what is usually the same thing, the thesis statement.

Skeptic's strategy

Someone who argues against someone else's recommendation or claim—that is, who discourages a course of action or attempts to show that a claim is false. In an academic essay, the author acts as a critic in this sense by advancing arguments that are aimed at undermining a plausible or established claim.

Impartial adjudicator's strategy

Has to consider and weigh the evidence from all- available points of view before passing judgment. Ideally, this person will explicitly state or summarize all the available positions on the issue at hand. The wider and more complex the issue, the more space is required to state and assess all the available positions.