Untitled Notes

Course: INDP 170
Instructor: Professor Zarit

Logical Order: Arguments should present ideas in a coherent, logical sequence to aid understanding.
Reliable Premises: Arguments must start from premises that are trustworthy and fact-based.
Concrete and Concise: Avoid vague language; arguments should be straightforward and to the point.

Premises:
- “Anybody could be a zombie.”
- “Zombies are always looking to eat the brains of the living.”
- Conclusion: “Therefore, you should always be ready for a zombie attack.”

Example of Vague Statement:
- Original: “I seem to have the distinct impression that my canine companion and I are no longer physically located within the geographical confines of the midwestern American state generally known as Kansas.”
- Shorter Version Needed: Simplifying this phrase for clarity is essential.

Another Example of Vague Statement:
- Original: “At a point in time subsequent to the present point in time, I will once again be in the location where I am presently located.”
- A concise version would improve clarity.

Definition:
- Appeals to the emotions of a crowd rather than rational arguments.
Common expressions:
- “Everybody is doing it.”
- “Lots of people are saying that this is true.”

Structure of Argument:
- “According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.”
- Conclusion: “Therefore, Y is true.”
Example:
- Richard Dawkins states that evolution is true.
- Importance: Not just his acclaim; what matters is the evidence supporting evolution.
Clarification:
- Listening to experts is important, but their claims must be supported by evidence.
- Not all self-proclaimed experts provide valid or substantiated claims.

Description:
- An argument that begins and ends at the same point without progression.
Example:
- “You can count on News One for facts because their motto is 'we just give you the facts'.”
Additional examples:
- “This email is legitimate because you can trust this and all further emails from me.”
- “It is illegal because it is against the law.”

Definition:
- A question framed in a way that traps the respondent into agreeing with a presupposed claim.
Example Questions:
- “Are you still as self-centered as you used to be?”
- “How long had you contemplated this robbery before you carried it out?”

Definition:
- Refers to creating a caricatured version of an opposing view to easily attack it.
Common Example:
- Claim that all vegans are opposed to any form of animal captivity, implying they would never own a pet.
Dialogue Example:
- Person A: “We need some non-Christmas songs at the holiday concert.”
- Person B: “Why do you hate Christmas?”

Definition:
- An ad hoc fallacy occurs when new, often unsubstantiated reasons are created to explain away a failed argument or outcome.
Example Conversations:
- Student 1: “I really should have gotten an A for the exam.”
- Student 2: “You got several questions wrong, though.”
- Student 1: “That must be because the teacher is a jerk.”
- Psychic example for the ad hoc reasoning illustrating denial of direct evidence for supernatural claims.

Activity structure:
- Form groups of 3-5 people.
- Select one of the discussed fallacies: Ad populum, Appeal to authority, Circular reasoning, Complex question, Straw man, Ad hoc.
- Choose two fallacies and create unique example scenarios for each selected fallacy.

Grounds (Data/Evidence):
- The specific facts or evidence supporting a claim, which forms the foundation of an argument.
- Example: “Studies show teeth are 50% whiter after using this product.”
Warrant (Bridge/Assumption):
- The logical or often unstated connection linking the grounds to the claim, explaining why the evidence is relevant.
- Example: “People want whiter teeth” to support the desire for purchasing the product.

Grounds:
- “You hear barking and howling in the distance.”
- “Dogs are animals that bark and howl.”
Warrant:
- The conclusion derived from grounds and warrant is that “There are dogs nearby.”

Inquiry:
- “Students who attend class regularly tend to earn higher grades than students who miss class frequently.”
- Claim: “Colleges should encourage consistent class attendance as a way to improve student academic performance.”
Break down the components:
- Grounds: Regular attendance allows students to hear core explanations, ask questions, and partake in discussions that reinforce course material.
- Warrant: The implication that engaging with material through attendance correlates with better performance.
- Conclusion: Consistent attendance leads to improved academic performance.

Task:
- Identify the fallacy in the following statement and explain why it is correct:
- “Everyone I know agrees that this campus policy is fair. It’s widely supported by students, so it clearly works. Therefore, anyone who disagrees is probably overthinking the issue.”