Phill 200 Midterm

your line of reasoning should always be

clear and intelligible

you should look for information that is

accurate and opposes your position

implications

claims that logically follow other claims

premises

statements that provide reasons to support an argument

types of premises

logical statements, empirical (sensory experience) data, statistical data, etc

conclusion

statement your reasons are supporting, the conclusion you are arguing for

words to identify premises

because, since, given that, for, on the grounds that, this follows from, assuming that, for the reason that

words to identify the conclusion

therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently, this shows, as a result, it follows that

indicator words

because, since, so

have many uses, so don’t always indicate premises

what kind of words should you avoid using to remain clear in your arguments

abstract, vauge, and general terms

flowery or metaphorical language

if your premises are weak…

then your conclusion is weak

what should you not rely on in arguments

overtones, hidden meanings, emotion

fallacy

erroneous reasoning “trick” used while persuading someone

ad hominem

attack or insult on the person rather than their reasons

slippery slope

assumed one event will create an undesireable chain of events, even if it’s unrealistic

equivocation

key word or phrase with two meanins is used so the argument fails to make sense when shifts in meaning is recognized

Ad Populum

justifying a claim by appealing to large groups of people with something in common

Appeal to Questionable Authority

supporting a conclusion by citing an authority with a lack of credible expertise

Appeals to Emotion

using emotionally charged language to distract from relevant reasons and evidence

Straw man

distorting opponents POV so it is easy to attack

False Dilemma/Either-Or Fallacy

assuming only two alternatives can exist when there are more than two

Wishful thinking

assuming that just because we wish something is true/false, then it is

Red Herring

presenting an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the issue and help “win” by distracting from what is being actually argued

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

argument where conclusion is assumed in the answer

when is an argument valid

if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion

can a valid argument have a false conclusion?

yes, as long as the conclusion follows the premises

when is an argument sound

if it is both valid and all the premises are actually true

Modus Ponens form

if P then Q

P

Therefore Q

Modus Tollens form

If P then Q

not Q

Therefore not P

Hypothetical Syllogisms

If P then Q

If Q then R

Therefore, if P then R

Disjunctive Syllogism

P or Q

Not P

Therefore, Q

Dilemma form

P or Q

If P then R

If Q then S

Therefore, R or S

Reductio Ad Absurdum

To prove: P

Assume the opposite: not P

Argue that from the assumption we’d have to conclude: Q

Show that Q is false

Conclude: P is true after all

What does inductive reasoning aim at

probability, not certainty

inductive reasoning within conclusions (phrases)

it is likely that, it is reasonable to conclude that, it is probable that

inductive reasoning within premises (phrases)

it is reasonable to think that, it is likely, generally, statistically

Types of inductive arguments

predictions

retrodictions (predictions abt past based on current info)

analogies

statistical reasoning

causal reasoning/explanations

what role does validity/invalidity play in inductive reasoning?

validity/invalidity is inappropriate with induction

cannot supply conclusive reasonings or aim conclusiveness

same with soundness/unsoundness

how is inductive reasoning evaluated?

evaluated for strength or weakness

when is an inductive argument strong

if the conclusion is probably true based on given premises

when is an inductive argument cogent

if it is strong and al the premises are true

inductive arguments are strong to the degree to which the evidence…

is relevant to the truth of the conclusion and increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true

what should an argument be to avoid confusion

precise and clear

does an argumentative essay have to have a typical 5-paragraph structure?

no, the intro, body, and conclusion taught in high school does not adequately respond to an argument at hand

basic argumentative essay structure

introduction (written LAST)

subclaim 1…n.

counterarguments to subclaims 1…n.

rebuttals to counterarguments 1…n.

conclusion

virtues

stable habits of choosing and acting well

virtue ethics (in teaching)

focus is on character and judgement

habits built on fairness, patience, and practical wisdom

might have incosistent standards

utilitarianism (in teaching)

focus is on consequences

practices improve learning and welfare

risks treating students as numbers or justifying harmful means

deontology

focus is on duties and respect

protects dignity, consistency, and autonomy

risks following rules mechanically or ignoring context

teachers role in the classroom

subject expert (knows field)

designs learning (practice, examples, feedback)

fair authority (visible expectations and consistent evaluation)

steward of class (creates conditions to participate)

students role in classroom

agent (comes prepared, asks questions)

participant (contributes)

critical thinker (evaluates claims, doesn’t rely on outside sources)

responsible adult (communicates, follows course commitments)

what 5 things make a professor effective?

clarity

challenge

feedback

responsiveness

reflection

information delivery alone

accurate lectures and readings, content is covered, little attention to misunderstanding or failure

ethically responsible teaching

accurate info and structured practice, feedback, attention to confusion, support with student agency

paternalism

professor decides what students need without listening to them

favoritism

warmth or flexibility follows personal preference rather than fair criteria

lowered standards

concern becomes avoidance of honest evaluation

emotional overreach

professional support becomes personal dependency

when does care become ethically meaningful?

when students can recognize it in the professors actions (observable care)

relativism

right and wrong depend on beliefs held by society

denies the objective truth of any ethical theory

subjectivism

extreme form of relativism, says the individual makes their own moral decisions

consequentialism

what makes an action right or wrong depends on its results

things that make people better off are morally good, and things that make people worse off are morally bad

calculate the likely effects of actions and pick the one that will produce the best results

ethical egosim

an action is morally right if it benefits you and wrong if it harms you

promoting your welfare does not mean you should give in to momentary pleasures. focus is on long-term self-interests

utilitarianism

an action is morally right to the extent that it increase overall well-being and is morally wrong to the extent it decreases overall well-being

type of consequentialist theory

overall refers to everyone likely to be effected

greatest amount of happiness for greatest number of people (leaves out minorities!)

non-consequentialism

the results produced by an action have nothing to do with its rightness or wrongness, an action is morally right if it is consistent with the moral law

says we have certain moral duties that we must perform regardless of their consequences

this is also deontology

includes the hypothetical and categorical imperative

hypothetical imperative

everyday ethical choices

categorical imperative

universalizability principle - ask yourself what would happen if everyone did what you were about to do all the time

the humanity formulation - treat humanity as an end, never merely a means (never use anyone as a tool, respect them as free thinking)