philosophy - unit 1 2026 🍓

what are truth statements/propositions?

A statement which is a complete sentence and either true or false

what are not propositions?

questions, exclamations, commands, requests, rules, wishes and nonsense

what are premises?

one or more additional truth claims arranged to support and justify the conclusion (primary truth claim). Come from logic or experience.

what forms an argument?

primary truth claim (conclusion) and its supporting statements (premises)

what is an argument?

A connected series of statements/propositions which are intended to establish a conclusion.

what do we use to evaluate/judge/assess the quality of arguments?

their overall logic and the credibility of their supporting premises/evidence

what are the types of descriptions that we use when assessing the quality of arguements?

true, highly credible, credible, dubious, highly dubious, false or somewhere inbetween.

what is standard form? (SF)

How we present arguments in philosophy for analysis and evaluation. Ensures precision.

what must propositions include?

a subject and a verb

how can you distinguish between different propositions?

by considering their function or purpose AND how their truth is determined

what are the two types of function or purpose? (propositions)

descriptive and normative

what are descriptive propositions?

factual; concerned with what is. Include statements about the world that can be considered true or false.

What are normative propositions?

evaluative; concerned with what ought to be. Involve judgements or values about things, people, relationships and actions.

What are 2 examples of descriptive propositions?

‘Tasmania is south of Victoria’, ‘Cats have 4 legs’

what are 2 examples of normative propositions?

‘You should not steal’, ‘Lying is wrong’.

what are examples of conclusion/premise indicators?

as, since, because, therefore, for, thus, consequently

In philosophy, what does consistent mean?

a set of propositions that can all be true together

in philosophy, what does inconsistent mean?

a set of propositions that cannot be true together

what is a conclusion? (in philosophy)

a point of view or particular belief put forward in an argument; a proposition that is supported (to some degree) by premise/s.

when writing in standard form, what are some things to remember?

Punctuation, capital letters, use P & C, no contractions, use full line between premises & conclusions for valid and dotted line for inductive, sequence in most logical order

what does standard form help us understand?

what is being claimed and to what degree that claim is supported

what is the is-ought problem?

the logic gap that appears when trying to argue for a normative conclusion based on descriptive premises.

what can you fix the is-ought problem?

by including an additional premise that bridges the gap between the descriptive premise and normative conclusion.

what are some other differences between simple and complex arguments?

simple arguments consist of only premises and a conclusion, whereas complex arguments show multiple chains of reasoning and encompass more complex elements

how do we symbolise intermediate conclusions in standard form?

IC

what are tacit premises?

assumption in the argument that is not explicitly stated (implied) but is necessary for the argument to work

what must we do if we encounter tacit premises in another person’s argument?

identify them and include them in standard form construction, allowing truth value to be evaluated

how do we symbolise tacit premises in standard form?

“TP” and placed in square brackets

what are tacit conclusions?

conclusions where the premises are clearly laid out but the conclusion is not directly stated but rather inferred/implied

how do you symbolise tacit conclusions in standard form?

“TC” and placed in square brackets

what are deductive arguments?

method of reasoning that tend to support a conclusion with certainty given that the premises are true. Aim to be valid by following a series of logically certain formulas that ensure validity

what are deductively valid arguments?

arguments where the assumed truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion

in philosophy, what does valid mean?

having a conclusion that is necessarily true/unavoidable if the given set of premises were to be accepted as true

what is the analogy for deductive arguments?

like scissors - aren’t many elements/parts, yet they are all vital and need to be correctly arranged. If you remove any elements, they dont function.

how do deductive arguments achieve perfect, watertight logic? (validity)

by having/using simple set formulas that allow their premises to function efficiently together

what are deductively invalid arguments?

deductive arguments that have committed a fallacy/failure in logic. “Stuffs up” formula and consequently ‘fail’ to be valid

deductive arguments are referred to as a ‘tightly coupled’ system. What does this mean?

components are highly dependent on each other and changes in one component can have a significant impact on other components.

what are inductive arguments?

a method of reasoning that has a conclusion with less than a 100% probability of being true. Offers high probability but not absolute certainty. ALWAYS invalid

inductive arguments are referred to as a ‘loosely-coupled system’. What does this mean?

components are more independent and changes in one component have minimal impact on other components.

If an argument is valid, it will be….

deductive

what are the 2 conditions in which we evaluate arguments? in order

1) logic condition (based off of structure - assume truth of premises), 2) truth condition (investigate factual content of premises)

what does it mean when an argument is sound? (soundness)

an argument that is both valid and free from factual errors.

can an argument be partially valid or sound?

no

what does a full, unbroken line between premises and the conclusion in SF indicate?

the argument is valid

what does a dotted line between premises and the conclusion in SF indicate?

the argument is invalid

what are inferential arguments?

arguments that contain a conditional (or, if…then) relationship between 2 propositions.

how is inferential arguments symbolised?

by using a dictionary; assigning a relevant letter to proposition

what are the classic valid argument forms?

modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, constructive dilemma

what is modus ponens?

affirming the antecedent; if x then y, x, therefore y.

what is modus tollens?

denying the consequent, if x then y, not y therefore not x.

what is disjunctive syllogism?

denying a disjunct; either x or y. not x, therefore y.

what is hypothetical syllogism?

chain argument. if x, then y. if y, then z. therefore, if x, then z.

what is constructive dilemma?

if w, then x. if y, then z. w or y. therefore, x or z.

what are the two deductively invalid argument forms/

affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent

how do you symbolise affirming the consequent + is it valid or invalid?

if x then y. y. therefore, x. invalid.

how do you symbolise denying the antecedent and is it valid or invalid?

if x then y. not x, therefore not y. invalid

what are the two truth condition outcomes?

deductively sound or deductively unsound

what is a deductively sound argument?

when the assumed truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion and all of the premises & conclusion are true

what is a deductively unsound argument?

when the assumed truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion but the premises (1 or more)/conclusion are not true.

what is an inductive argument?

an argument that aims to provide probable support for the conclusion. Sets out a series of reasons for why a conclusion should be accepted and assesses their strength/weakness

what is a sample?

a small part/quantity to show what the whole is like

what is a population?

all the inhabitants of a particular place

what are some types of inductive reasoning?

inductive generalisation, proportional induction, statistical syllogism, analogy

what is inductive generalisation?

saying that what is true for a sample is true for the whole of the population.

what is proportional induction?

proportions (ie: percentages, fractions) from a sample are inferred to apply to the same percentage of the population.

what is statistical syllogism?

inference applies a general trend in a population to an individual/subset.

what is an analogy?

different objects or situations seen to be similar in some respects are inferred to be similar in another respect. Sample to sample or population to population.

what are the steps for evaluating a deductively valid + sound argument?

1) put into standard form, 2) state the definition of a valid argument and identity the valid form the argument takes, explain how/why the specific argument fulfils the definition 3) work premise-by premise to explain how/why each one can be accepted as being truthful (observable fact, conclusion of another sound argument or because its axiomatic/self evident, by definition, etc). Then state how this argument is sound.

what words can we use to define the truth of a premise?

credible, doubtful/dubious, true, false, charity

what does credible mean?

when a premise is well supported by evidence, but we still can’t be certain that it’s true.

what does doubtful/dubious mean?

when a premise is not well/clearly supported by evidence, but we still can’t be certain that its false

what does charity mean?

giving the benefit of the doubt when there is no reason/evidence not to do so. (ie: if a premise says ‘this is a bird’ and there’s no reason to assume it isn’t.)

what are the steps for evaluating a deductively invalid argument?

1) put into standard form, 2) state the definition of a deductively invalid argument and identity the informal fallacy. explain how/why the argument fails to be valid and how this fallacy impacts the argument. (using necessary and sufficient)

what are the steps for evaluating an inductive argument?

1) put into standard form 2) state that its inductive + provide definition of an invalid/inductive argument Supply a counter example to illustrate how the premises could be true and the conclusion be false.3) determine strength - state a definition/provide an explanation of inductive strength and explain how/why this is/is not the case for the specific argument being evaluated

what is a counterexample?

a comment that shows by example and/or explanation how even if the premises are/were true, the conclusion could still be false. It is always needed to justify a judgement that an argument is invalid.

how to you evaluate a deductively valid + unsound argument?

1) put in standard form 2) state the definition of a valid argument and identify the valid form the argument takes. explain how/why the specific argument being evaluated fulfils the definition. 3) signpost 4) state the definition of a sound argument. identify any premise/premises which are false. explain how/why it/they are false. Identify any premise/s where truth is contentious (there’s disagreement) or where there is uncertainty about truthfulness and explain why.

while in the justification stage of evaluating arguments, what should be considered?

factual errors, unsupported assertions, problematic assumptions (tacit premises), fallacies + their consequences on strength

To start evaluating an inductive/invalid argument, what is the definition to start with?

SF1 is an inductive/invalid argument. An argument is invalid when the assumed truth of its premises supports the conclusion to a degree of probability, but does not guarantee it to a certainty. An invalidating counterexample for SF1 is…

to evaluate weak strength for an inductive argument, what is a sentence to start/end with?

The negligible support that the premises provide for the conclusion renders the argument weak.

to evaluate strong strength for an inductive/invalid argument, what is a sentence to start/end with?

The premises offer significant support for the likelihood that the conclusion is true. Thus, the argument is considered strong.

to start evaluating a deductively valid argument, what is the definition to start with?

SF1 is a deductively valid argument. An argument is valid when the assumed truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. This argument takes the valid form of….

to start evaluating a deductively invalid argument, what is the definition to start with?

SF1 is an deductively invalid argument. An argument is deductively invalid when it appears to have the structure of a deductive argument, but it includes a fundamental flaw in its structure (called a fallacy) that destroys its validity. The type of formal fallacy is…

to evaluate a sound argument, what is a sentence to start/end with?

Because SF1 is a valid argument, its premises must be tested to determine whether it is sound. An argument is sound when it is both valid and its premises can be shown to be true and free from factual errors. Due to the arguable truth of the premises, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. Therefore, SF1 is a deductively sound argument.

to evaluate an unsound argument, what is a sentence to start/end with?

Because SF1 is a valid argument, its premises must be tested to determine whether it is sound. An argument is sound when it is valid and its premises can be shown to be true and free from factual errors. As the premises are false, this argument is considered valid, but unsound,

what are informal fallacies?

some other mistake (other than falsely claiming deductive validity) is made

what are the types of informal fallacies (that are needed for the exam)?

ad populum, tu quoque, ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad verecundiam, slippery slope, faulty analogy, ad misercordiam, gamblers fallacy, composition, division, begging the question (circular argument), hasty generalisation, black and white thinking

what does ad populum mean?

saying ‘lots of people are doing it, so it must be right!’

what does tu quoque mean?

saying ‘you’re doing it too, so it must be alright’

what does ad hominem mean?

irrelevant attacks on the proposer

what does post hoc ergo propter hoc mean?

assuming that because B commonly comes after A, B must be caused by A

what does ad verecundiam mean?

treating a non-authority as an authority, or treating an authority as definitive, especially when the experts disagree.

what does slippery slope mean?

arguing that because the borderline between A & B is vague, all A’s are really B’s

what does faulty analogy mean?

when using analogy, difference between events outweigh similarities OR where there is an important, fundamental difference between the two linked qualities

what does fallcious mean?

having a fault/s in logic/reasoning

what does strong mean (in relation to an invalid argument)?

having premises which offer a high degree of logical and truthful/credible support for the conclusion. An argument can be strong, very strong, quite strong, moderately strong, etc

what does weak mean (in relation to an invalid argument)?

having premises which offer little logical support for the conclusion and/or one or more premises which are false/dubious.

what does ad misercordiam mean?

illicit appeal to pity

what does gambler’s fallacy (monte carlo) mean?

treating independent events as if they were dependent; assuming past outcomes affect future ones

what does composition (the fallacy) mean?

illicit inference from part to whole

what does division (the fallacy) mean?

illicit inference from whole to part