Logical Reasoning (Loophole by Ellen Cassidy)

Credit to sraavya_poonuganti on Quizlet

CLIR?

Method of finding what’s wrong with the argument and prephrasing an answer.

• If debate, identify the controversy (C).

• If it’s an argument, identify the loophole (L) - there’s a couple of chapters in the book on classic loopholes and flaws with arguments.

• If the stimulus is a premise set, find the inference by extrapolating what could/must be true based on the info they’ve given (I).

• If the stimulus is a paradox, find a resolution (R).

Stimulus Type: Debate

CLIR Type: Controversy

Stimulus Type: Argument

CLIR Type: Loophole

Stimulus Type: Premise Set

CLIR Type: Inference

Stimulus Type: Paradox

CLIR Type: Resolution

Premise Indicators

because, for, since, as, given that

Conclusion Indicators

therefore, accordingly, consequently, so, thus, hence, it follows that

Inference vs. Valid Conclusion

Valid Conclusion = presented as part of an argument
Inference = a valid conclusion that you design yourself

Certainty Power Players

Must, Cannot

Possibility Power Players

Could, Not Necessarily

Certainty Conclusions require:

Certainty Premises

Possibility Conclusions require:

Certainty Premises (preferred) or Possibility Premises (usually invalid)

Must Be True is equivalent to:

Cannot Be False

Cannot Be True is equivalent to:

Must Be False

Could Be True is equivalent to:

Not Necessarily False

Not Necessarily True is equivalent to:

Could Be False

Must Be True negated is:

Not Necessarily True

Not Necessarily True negated is:

Must Be True

Cannot Be True negated is:

Could Be True

Could Be True negated is:

Cannot Be True

Sufficient Condition

The "if" part of the conditional

If the sufficient condition is absent:

you can completely ignore the conditional statement.

Sufficient Condition Indicators

if, when, whenever, any, anytime, all, every, everytime, in order to, people who, each

Necessary Condition

The "then" part of the conditional

Necessary Condition Indicators

then, must, necessary, required, only, only if, depends, need, need to, have to, essential, precondition

'Only If' is a ________ indicator

Necessary

'Unless' Diagram:

~[The way things always are] --> Exception

What does a sufficient assumption do?

It proves the conclusion 100% true

What does a necessary assumption do?

It is proven true if the conclusion is true

The Assumption Chain

SA --> Conclusion True --> NA

SA Test

Does [assumption candidate] prove the conclusion?

NA Test

If the conclusion is true, must [assumption candidate] be true?

The negated necessary assumption is equivalent to:

The Loophole!

The 3 Omitted Options

1. No Relationship
2. Backwards Causation
3. New Factor Causing One or Both

Classic Flaw: Bad Conditional Reasoning

author reads the conditionals supplied in the premises incorrectly

Classic Flaw: Bad Causal Reasoning

One of the 3 omitted options is present in this causal relationship

Classic Flaw: Whole-to-Part & Part-to-Whole

The argument assumes from wholes to parts or from parts to wholes

Classic Flaw: Overgeneralization

Part does not equal all of the parts (part to part)

Classic Flaw: Survey Problems

1. Biased Sample
2. Biased Questions
3. Other Contradictory Surveys
4. Survey Liars
5. Small Sample Size

Classic Flaw: False Starts

Researchers assume that the two groups are the same in all respects except the ones called out as part of the study

Classic Flaw: Possibility =/= Certainty

1. Lack of Evidence =/= Evidence of Lacking
2. Proof of Evidence =/= Evidence of Proof

Classic Flaw: Implication

Implication tells people what they believe when the person in question may not be aware of what their belief implies

Classic Flaw: False Dichotomy

1. Limiting a Spectrum
2. Limiting Options

Classic Flaw: Straw Man

Straw Man arguments "respond" to an opponent by "mishearing" what was said to them

Classic Flaw: Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem premises insult the proponent of a position, but then the conclusion challenges the truth of the position itself. The problem is that proponents don't affect the truth/falsity of their position

Classic Flaw: Circular Reasoning

A circular argument assumes the conclusion is true before doing the work of proving it so

Classic Flaw: Equivocation

Equivocation happens when the author changes the meaning of a word throughout an argument

Classic Flaw: Appeal Fallacies

1. Invalid Appeal to Authority - Author uses a non-expert opinion to support their conclusion
2. Invalid Appeal to Public Opinion - a high percentage of random people believing anything has very little bearing on whether that thing is actually true

Classic Flaw: Irrelevant!

Premises are unrelated to the conclusion

Classic Flaw: Percentages =/= Numbers

Premises about numbers (#) almost never lead to conclusions about percentages (%) and vice versa

Powerful Question Types

SW SCCER: Strengthen, Weaken, SA, Counter, Contradiction, Evaluate, Resolution

Provable Question Types

Conclusion, Inference, MSS, Fill In, Controversy, Agreement, NA, Method, Argument Part, Classic Flaw, Loophole Flaw, Principle Conform, Parallel Reasoning, Parallel Flaw

Powerful Answer Keywords

all, every, none, never, only, required, every time, always

Provable Answer Keywords

could, usually, can, possible, (at least) some, not necessarily, (at least) one, possibly, tend to, sometimes, not all, may, varies

If an answer choice is neither powerful nor provable:

it is always wrong, no matter the question type

Strengthen Correct Answer

The most powerful thing you can find to help the argument's conclusion

Strengthen Back-Up Plan

Does this make the conclusion more likely to be true?

Strengthen Question Stem Keywords

- which of the following, if true
- strengthen
- most helps to + justify/strengthen/support

Weaken Correct Answer

The most powerful thing you can find to destroy the argument's conclusion

Weaken Back-Up Plan

Does this make the conclusion less likely to be true?

Weaken Question Stem Keywords

- which of the following, if true
- weaken
- most undermines the conclusion
- most vulnerable
- count as evidence against
- calls into question

Sufficient Assumption (SA) Correct Answer

The most powerful thing you can find to prove the conclusion 100% valid

Reminder: SA --> Conclusion True --> NA

Sufficient Assumption (SA) Back-Up Plan

If this is true, is the argument 100% completely valid?

Sufficient Assumption (SA) Question Stem Keywords

- which of the following if true/assumed
- enable the conclusion to be properly drawn/justify the conclusion
- the conclusion follows logically if

Counter Correct Answer

The most powerful thing the first speaker could say to destroy the second speaker's argument

Counter Back-Up Plan

Is this something the first speaker would say and does it hurt the second speaker's argument?

Counter Question Stem Keywords

- which one of the following, if true
- counter
- in response to

Contradiction Correct Answer

the thing that contradicts literal words from the stimulus

Contradiction Back-Up Plan

Does this contradict the stimulus?

Note: Crazy Nonsense does NOT contradict the stimulus because they are completely irrelevant

Contradiction Question Stem Keywords

- if the statements above are true
- cannot be true
- violate the principle
- could be true except

Evaluate Correct Answer

A powerful pop quiz for the argument's validity

Evaluate Back-Up Plan

Is this crucial for the argument's validity?

Evaluate Question Stem Keywords

- the answer to which of the following questions
- which of the following, if true
- evaluate + the argument/the conclusion
- most helpful to know/relevant to evaluating

Resolution Correct Answer

The most powerful thing you can find to make the Paradox make sense

Resolution Back-Up Plan

Does this make the Paradox make sense?

Resolution Question Stem Keywords

- which one of the following, if true
- most helps to + explain/resolve/account for
- discrepancy/paradox/conflict/surprising result

Conclusion Correct Answer

A provable translation of the conclusion

Conclusion Back-Up Plan

Is this a translation of the conclusion?

Conclusion Question Stem Keywords

- main point
- main conclusion

Inference Correct Answer

The thing you can prove definitely must be true

Inference Back-Up Plan

Does this have to be true?

Inference Question Stem Keywords

- must be true/follows logically
- inference
- properly inferred/properly be
- concluded/properly drawn

Most Strongly Supported (MSS) Correct Answer

The thing you can prove is very, very, very likely to be true

Most Strongly Supported (MSS) Back-Up Plan

Does this pretty much have to be true?

Most Strongly Supported (MSS) Question Stem Keywords

- most strongly supported
- most strongly suggests

Fill In Correct Answer

The thing you can prove completes the author's thought

Fill In Back-Up Plan

Does this have to be true?

Fill In Question Stem Keywords

- completes/concludes
- a blank at the end of the stimulus

Controversy Correct Answer

The thing you can prove the two speakers disagree about

Controversy Back-Up Plan

Does the first speaker have to believe this is true/false? Does the second speaker have to believe this is true/false?

Controversy Question Stem Keywords

- point at issue
- point of disagreement
- disagree
- differing opinions

Agreement Correct Answer

The thing you can prove the two speakers agree about

Agreement Back-Up Plan

Does the first speaker have to believe this? Does the second speaker have to believe this?

Agreement Question Stem Keywords

- agree on
- point of agreement
- committed to agreeing

Necessary Assumption (NA) Correct Answer

The thing you can prove must be true, if the conclusion is true

Necessary Assumption (NA) Back-Up Plan

If the conclusion is true, does this have to be true?

Reminder: SA --> Conc. True --> NA

Necessary Assumption Question Stem Keywords

- necessary/depends/required/relies
- assumes/assumption
- the conclusion does not follow unless
- the argument assumes which one

Method Correct Answer

A provable description of what happened in the stimulus

Method Back-Up Plan

Did this happen?

Method Question Stem Keywords

- argument proceeds by
- describes
- argumentative technique/method of reasoning/strategy of argumentation
- responds by (in Debates)