philosophy arguments in action

statement

a type of sentence that has some sort of truth value (can be true or false)

argument

a series of statements used to establish a particular claim

premise

statements used as evidence to support the conclusion

conclusion

the statement that you are seeking to claim

conclusion indicator words

words used to introduce a conclusion eg therefore, so, hence, suggests, implies

premise indicator words

words sued to introduce a premise eg because, firstly, secondly, in view of the fact that…

standard form

is used to present an argument clearly, so it is easier to understand and read. The line of inference is used to introduce the conclusion.

vaild

a valid argument is one that forces you to accept its conclusion if you accept its premises. Its also valid if its well structured.

invaild

an invalid argument is one where we are not forced to believe the conclusion based on our premise. this means that its premises are possibly true and the conclusion is false.

sound

we call an argument sound when it has both a valid structure and true premises. They are the most reliable arguments.

unsound

if an argument has either false premises or invalid structure it is unsound.

hidden premise

a premise that is not explicitly stated, but must be assumed to exist based on the wording of the argument, basically what is being implied.

inductive

are based on experience. technically invalid, unsound and the conclusions are probable not certain.

deductive

cannot yield a false conclusion when premises are true, capable of being valid and the conclusions are capable of being certain truths.

intermediate conclusion

a conclusion that is meant to serve as a premise for a later conclusion.

conditional statements

is one with the structure that claims that if the first statement is true, then so is the second.

antecedent

the if in a conditional statement. if this is true so is the consequent.

consequent

the then part in a conditional statement.

strong/weak inductive arguments

if an inductive argument has lots of evidence for its conclusion it is strong. If it only has a little it is weak.

conductive arguments

quite similar to inductive reasoning in that they provide only probable conclusions rather than certain

difference between conductive and inductive

in conductive arguments the support for the conclusion converges. Meaning that each premise works independently of the others to support the conclusion.

conductive also may include counter considerations

argument diagrams

an argument diagram is a diagrammatic representation of an argument showing the premise, conclusion and the relationship between them.

linked arguments

premises are dependent

convergent arguments

give individual support to conclusion

serial

at least one intermediate conclusion

complex

combined of all

analogical arguments

to argue by analogy is to argue that because two things are similar, what is true of one thing is also true of another.

evaluating analogical arguments

consider TRUTH (are the two things similar)

NUMBER (is there several similarities?)

RELEVANCE (is the comparison relevant to the conclusion)

DISANAGLOGY (there may be relevant differences between the two, if significant they can make the argument work)

counter examples

something we can use to show a universal statement is false.

can be a way to show that an inductive or conductive argument can’t be true.