Phil 140 Midterm

Syllogisms

a deductive argument with exactly two premises and one conclusion

Categorial Syllogisms

both premises and the conclusion of the argument are categorial propositions - three statements

the premises and the conclusions contain exactly 3 different terms between them

each term appears twice in different propositions

Major term 

the term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion and in one of the premises

• term at end of the conclusion 

Major premise 

the premise in which the major term occurs - should be listed first 

• same end term as the conclusion 

Minor term

the term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion and in one of the premises

• first term in the conclusion

Minor premise

the premise in which the minor term occurs

• should be listed second

• has the same term as the subject in conclusion

Middle term 

the term that occurs in both premises but does nor occur anywhere in the conclusion

the term that cancels out

the third term that is not included in the conclusion 

Standard-Form

major premise listed first

minor premise listed second

conclusion listed last

• both premises and the conclusion are standard form categorial propositions

• the two occurrences of each term are the same

• each term has the same meaning in each of its occurrences

Mood

the letter names of the constituent propositions of a categorial syllogism in the following order : major premise, minor premise, conclusion

• give each statement their letter proposition - A,E,I,O

• the order of letters gives the mood

Figure - 4 options 

1. the middle term occupies the subject position in the major premise and the predicate position in the minor plane 

• middle term first, then middle term second 

2. middle term occupies the predicate position in both premises 

• middle term last in both statements 

3. the middle term occupies the subject position in both premises 

• middle term first in both statements 

4. the middle term occupies the predicate position in the major premise and the subject position in the minor premise 

• middle term last, then middle term first 

Validity

based on the mood and figure

certain moods with certain figures are not valid

based on chart

Venn Diagrams - Step One : set up

produce a diagram consisting of three interlocking circles

• lower left - minor term (S)

• lower right - major term (P)

• upper middle - middle term (M)

each section is numbered

I have no idea if I have to remember it, they numbered weird

Venn Diagrams - Characteristic Diagrams 

if shaded it means its empty - not it, none of it 

just two circles, S and P

• A prop - All S are P - S is shaded

• E prop - No S are P - middle shaded

• I prop - Some S are P - an x in the middle

• O prop - Some S are not P - an x in S

Venn Diagrams - when doing 

• label properly 

• break down into statements 

• split into premises - do each separately 

Premise 1 - find the two classes it follows and use the characteristic diagrams, ignore other circles

Premise 2 - do the same as 1

do not diagram the conclusion

I and O premises

if one premise requires shading and the other requires an x, do the shading first

• can’t put an x in an area that is shaded, it’s “empty”

if an x can go into two separate regions, place it on the line between those regions

Interpreting Venn Diagrams

a diagram shows an argument to be valid if and only if the diagram for the premises makes the conclusion true

true conclusions

• A-prop : regions 2 and 5 shaded

• E-prop : regions 3 and 6 shaded

• I-prop : an x in region 3 or 6

• O-prop : an x in region 2 or 5

Proposition

a sentence that is used to make a claim about how things are, true or false

Terms - Subject and Predicate

terms : a word or phrase that can serve as the subject of a proposition

subject : denotes the class whose members are claimed to be included in or excluded from a class of things by the categorial proposition 

predicate : denotes the class of things that members of the subject class are claimed to be included in or excluded from 

• example : Some dogs are not good pets 

  • Subject - dogs

  • Predicate - good pets 

4 Standard Forms of S and P

A - All S are P  -  universal positive 

E - No S are P  -  universal negative 

I - Some S are P  -  particular positive 

O - Some S are not P  -  particular negative 

Quantifier 

an expression which specifies how many members of the subject class are included in or excluded from the predicate class

all, no, some 

Copula

an expression which links the subject term with the predicate term

are, are not

Quantity and Quality of Categorial Propositions

Quality : a matter of whether a proposition affirms or denies class membership

• positive - members are included

• negative - members are excluded

Quantity : how many members off the class are addressed

• universal - make a claim about every member of the subject class; All, No

• particular - make claims about one or more, but not all members; Some

How to transform statements into categorial form 

1. transform the subject and predicate terms into a class, make it a plural noun

• all professors are evil - all professors are evil people

2. copulas - change it so are or are not are present in the statement

3. quantifiers - have to make the decision if its universal or particular; have to add all, no, or some

4. if its an individual subject - say all things identical to

Transformations of Categorial Propositions  - 3 

a) switch the subject and predicate terms 

b) change the quality of proposition 

• A - “All S are P” becomes “No S are P”

o   E - “No S are P” becomes “All S are P”

o   I - “Some S are P” becomes “Some S are not P”

o   O - “Some S are not P” becomes “Some S are P”

c) replace one or more terms with their complements 

Complements

an expression which denotes the class whose members consist of everything that falls outside the class denoted by the original term

initial - iguanas

complement - non-iguanas, things that are not iguanas

Three Operations - Transformations

1. Conversion - a) transformation only - switch S and P

2. Obversion - b) and c) transformation - predicate complement, only time you change the quantifier and copula

3. Contraposition - a) and c) transformation - subject and predicate complement

Equivalence of Transformations 

Obverse - always equivalent 

Converse - not equivalent with A and O

Contrapositive - not equivalent with E and I

what is a fallacy

a type of bad argument that had proven to be regularly persuasive, that somehow creates an illusion that serves to make it seem good

Ad Hominem (Against the Person)

when one person advances an argument and another person responds by directing his or her attention not to the argument but to the person who made it

criticizes the person who made the argument

3 types 

Ad Hominem - Abusive

when a respondent uses abusive language against their argumentative opponent

choosing to insult the person proposing the argument 

Ad Hominem - Circumstantial 

when a respondent uses accuses their argumentative opponent of having a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute which entails that the argument should not be taken seriously

if people accept the argument the person who proposed it will benefit 

Ad Hominem - To quoque

occurs when a respondent attempts to make their argument opponent appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith

smoker advocating that smoking is dangerous

Cluster I - Appeals to Emotion; three types

1. Ad Baculum - Appeal to Force

2. Ad Misericordiam - Appeal to Pity

3. Ad Populum - Bandwagon, Appeal to People

Ad Baculum - Appeal to Force

occurs when an arguer poses a conclusion to disputant and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to them if they do not accept the conclusion

Ad Misericordiam - Appeal to Pity

occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

Ad Populum - Bandwagon

occurs when an arguer uses people’s desire to be loved, accepted, etc. to get listeners to accept a conclusion; appeal to the people

Cluster II - Parts and Members; 4 types 

1. Accident - Destroying the Exception

2. Hasty Generalization 

3. Composition

4. Division 

Accident - Destroying the Exception

occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Hasty Generalization

occurs when a too small or unrepresentative sample of a population is used to justify a generalization about all or most members of that population

Composition

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts if something onto the whole

since one is, then they are all

Division

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole onto its parts

since the whole is, then every part is 

Cluster III - Changing the Subject; 3 types

1. Straw Person

2. Irrelevant Conclusion - Missing the Point 

3. Red Herring 

Straw Person

occurs when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it

Irrelevant Conclusion - Missing the Point

occurs when the premises of an argument support one conclusion but a different, often vaguely related, conclusion is drawn

Red Herring 

occurs when the arguer diverts the attention of the listener by changing the subject to a different but subtly related one

Ad Ignorantium - Appeal to Ignorance

occurs when the premises of an argument establish that a thesis of some kind has not been proven and, on that basis, it is concluded that the contrary must be correct

haven’t proven its false, therefore it must be true

Slippery Slope

occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain reaction when there is not sufficient reason to think the chain reaction will occur

chain of events that argue the claim is unlikely to have happened, the conclusion relies on the fact that the chain reaction happened

Cluster IV - Weak Induction (two types)

1. Ad Ignorantium - Appeal to Ignorance 

2. Slippery Slope 

Cluster V - Presuppositions (two types)

1. Loaded Question - Complex Question

2. False Dilemma - False Dichotomy

Loaded Question - Complex Question

occurs when a question is posed which contains a controversial presupposition, rhetorical

given a yes, no question

False Dilemma - False Dichotomy 

occurs when an either/or premise is deployed which presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available

not A so it has to be B, both unlikely, but given as if they are the only two options

Cluster VI - Ambiguities (two types)

1. Equivocation - Semantic Ambiguity

2. Amphiboly - Syntactic Ambiguity

Equivocation - Semantic Ambiguity

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two different senses in the argument

Amphiboly - Syntactic Ambiguity 

occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a premise or conclusion is ambiguous between two or more grammatical structures

Critical Thinking

using logic to determine whether or not we ought to believe the various things we read, or people tell us

Logic

the discipline that evaluates arguments, methods to determine whether the arguments are good or bad

Argument

a group of statements, the premises, are claimed to provide support for the conclusion

Premises

statements that present reasons or evidence

Conclusion

the statement that presents reasons or evidence

Statements

sentences used to make claims about how things are

Examples of Non-Statements

questions, commands, promises

Types of Arguments

Inductive and Deductive

Inductive Arguments

incorporate the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true

start with a specific observation to form a general probably conclusion

seeks probability based on evidence

Deductive Arguments

incorporate the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true

start with a general premise to reach a guarded, guaranteed conclusion

deductive reasoning leads to a certain conclusion

Criteria for identifying arguments

presence of indicator terminology

the strength of the inferential connection

Indicator terminology

In - probable, improbable, plausible, implausible, likely, unlikely

De - necessarily, certainly, absolutely, definitely

Always look for these first, easily definable

inferential connections

the logical relationship between ideas, if they support each other

In - if the premises do not guarantee the conclusion; if the premises are not both true than they only make the conclusion probably true

De - premises guarantee the conclusion, both premises are true

forced to look for this if there are no indicator words

Evaluating Deductive arguments

Validity - the relationship between premises and conclusion; the argument is valid if and only if its not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false

Soundness - does the argument make sense

ex) valid but unsound - All pigs have wings, and all things with wings can fly. It follows that all pigs can fly.

Evaluating Indictive arguments

Strength - in a strong inductive argument, it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true; instead of validity; the premises may have strong points but still don’t confirm the conclusion

what classifies an argument

a passage is only an argument when it contains at least one premise, a conclusion, and includes and inferential claim

Indicator Term for all arguments

premise - because, since, given that

conclusion - hence, therefore, it follows that

inferential claim/relations and controversial conclusions

inferential relations - one or more of the statements in fact provide adequate reasons or evidence for one of the others

evidence that the conclusion could be probable, conclusion may be hidden in the passage

controversial conclusions - is this the kind of thing someone would be giving an argument for

Non-Arguments - types of unstructured passages

statement of belief - a passage whose point is to convey the speaker’s opinions about something; I believe

loosely associated statements - a collection of statements on the same general subject; statements are not super connected

report - a groups of statements that convey information about some topic or event, tightly connected, same topic

conditional statement - a statement of the form : if…. then,

• antecedent - statement after if

• consequent - statement after then

three types of Structured Passages

1. expository

2. illustrative

3. explanatory

Expository passage

a collection of statements that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop or elaborate on it

illustrative passage

a collection of statements consisting of a generalization together with one or more instances of this generalization

piece of writing that supports a general statement or main idea by providing specific examples, details, comparisons, or anecdotes to clarify and make the idea more understandable and relatable to the reader

explanatory passage

a group of statements that claim to shed light on some event or phenomenon

• explanandum - the statement that describes the event

• explanans - statements that do the explaining

restructuring an argument

• locate indicators - determine if its an argument

• list premises (P1, P2) and conclusion (C)

• write them in separate declarative statements

• eliminate all indicators and omit statements that are neither a premise or conclusion

• don’t break up “either” statements, break up “and” statements

argument diagrams - how to

first thing you do is number the statements - Peter will do

put arrows from a statement to a conclusion, arrowhead points to the thing the statement is supporting

pay attention to indicator terminology, can lead to having multiple conclusions and will indicate if the conclusion is in the middle of the premises or not

ex. statement…because….premises, because indicates a conclusion

argument diagrams - what arrows mean what (3)

1. conjoint premises - working together, if taken separately they provide little to no support, but taken together they do provide support, if they both support directly to the same conclusion

• a single arrow from a brace encompassing all conjoint premises

1. independent premises - if they would continue to support in the same way if the other premises weren’t there

• separate arrows from different numbers

3. multiple conclusions - when a statement supports more than one conclusion

• an arrow leads to a brace encompassing both conclusions