Unit 1: Arguments and Critical Thinking

Overview

  • **Arguments (Ch. 1 Part I in Turetzky)

  • Types of Arguments and Standards of Evaluation (Ch. 1 Part II in Turetzky)**

  • The PHI 120 Final Exam is cumulative (covering Units 1, 2, and 3).

  • Duration of the exam: two hours.

  • Requirements upon arrival: arrive on time with comfortable writing utensils, blank scratch paper available upon request from Lila.

Structure of the Study Guide

  • Composed of abridged versions of study guides from the first two exams (covering Unit 1 and Unit 2) and a new section covering Unit 3: Inductive Logic.

  • This first section (pages 1-3) summarizes material for Exam 1.

  • Important concepts are found in Chapters 1 and 2 of Turetzky’s The Elements of Arguments.

  • Recommended to review course slides and homework/quiz questions for “Describe/Explain/Apply” material.

Key Definitions and Concepts

Be Able to Define:

  • Argument: A set of statements in which one (the conclusion) is affirmed on the basis of the others (the premises).

  • Premise: A statement that provides support or evidence for the conclusion.

  • Conclusion: The statement that follows logically from the premises.

Be Able to Describe, Explain, and/or Apply:

  • Significance of the word "supposes" in the definition of an argument: Indicates that an argument is not merely a statement; it involves a claim that the premises support the conclusion.

Types of Arguments

  • Deductive Argument: An argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

  • Inductive Argument: An argument where the premises support the conclusion but do not ensure it.

Types of Deductive Arguments

  • Valid Deductive Argument (Valid): If premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

  • Invalid Deductive Argument (Invalid): Premises may be true, but the conclusion is not guaranteed.

  • Sound Deductive Argument (Sound): A valid argument with all true premises.

  • Unsound Deductive Argument (Unsound): An argument that is either invalid or has at least one false premise.

Types of Inductive Arguments

  • Strong Inductive Argument (Strong): If all premises are true, the conclusion is likely true.

  • Weak Inductive Argument (Weak): Premises do not provide adequate support for the conclusion.

  • Good Inductive Argument (Good): An argument that is strong and has true premises.

  • Bad Inductive Argument (Bad): An argument that is weak or has false premises.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Two General Criteria for Evaluating Arguments:

    • Validity and Soundness for deductive arguments.

    • Strength and Goodness for inductive arguments.

  • Evaluating a Deductive Argument: Focus on validity (if the structure is correct) and soundness (if the premises are true).

  • Difference between Deductive and Inductive Arguments: Deductive arguments are about certainty; inductive arguments are about probability.

  • Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Assess strength and goodness by analyzing how well premises support the conclusion.

Unit 2: Deductive Logic

Truth and Falsity of Propositions (Ch. 2 Part I in Turetzky)

  • Be Able to Define:

    • Proposition: A statement that can be either true or false.

  • Distinguishing Concepts:

    • Differences between sentences and propositions: Sentences express propositions but may not qualify as propositions themselves if ambiguous.

    • Differences between arguments and propositions: Arguments contain premises leading to a conclusion, while propositions are standalone claims.

Additional Definitions:

  • Opinion: A subjective belief or judgment.

  • Fact: An objective state of affairs.

  • Statement of Fact: A true proposition regarding a state of affairs.

  • Dogmatism: An extreme form of certainty; refusing to consider other opinions or evidence.

  • Skepticism: Doubt or disbelief in the validity of something; an extreme form is counterproductive.

Application Concepts:

  • Language and Understanding: Language mediates our comprehension of the world.

  • Comparison Question: "Is that a fact or an opinion?" leads to misunderstandings and oversimplification of complex ideas.

  • Issues with Dogmatism and Skepticism: Both hinder intellectual discourse and the pursuit of truth.

Rhetoric and Argumentation

  • Rhetoric: The art of persuasive speaking or writing.

  • Rhetorically Effective Argument: An argument designed to persuade the audience effectively.

  • Content Propaganda vs. Vocabulary Propaganda:

    • Content Propaganda: Manipulation of information.

    • Vocabulary Propaganda: Manipulation with language’s emotional impact.

  • Orwell’s Six Rules: Guidelines for clear and honest language, helping resist misleading rhetoric.

Informal Fallacies (Ch. 2 Part IV in Turetzky)

Key Fallacies Defined:

Be Able to Define:

  • Appeal to Emotion: Using emotions to persuade rather than logic.

  • Specific Fallacies include:

    • Appeal to Fear (Scare Tactics): Inciting fear to persuade.

    • Appeal to Pity: Leveraging sympathy to sway opinion.

    • Ad hominem Fallacy: Attacking the person instead of the argument.

Application Concepts:

  • Identifying Fallacies: Understanding the distinct features that differentiate one fallacy from another.

  • Analysis of Arguments: Recognizing how specific arguments commit fallacies and analyzing their impact on logical discourse.

Practice Recommendations

  • Emphasize practice in the core skills of transcription, truth tables, and natural deduction learned in Unit 2, using resources available on Canvas.

  • Regularly check answers against the Teller Solutions Manual.

Inductive Logic (Unit 3)

Varieties of Inductive Reasoning (Herrick, Ch. 33, p. 1-8)

Concepts to Know:

  • Inductive Argument: An argument where the conclusion is probable based on the premises.

  • Strong vs. Weak Inductive Arguments: Understanding the degree of support provided by the premises.

Elementary Probability Theory (Herrick, Ch. 34, p. 1-3)

  • Good Inductive Argument: Meets criteria for strength and relevance.

  • Statistical Induction: The method of drawing broad conclusions from a sample population.

Key Types of Inductive Arguments Defined:

  • Analogy: Comparison based on shared characteristics.

  • Evaluating Analogical Arguments: Six criteria for evaluation include:

    • Number of Shared Characteristics

    • Relevance

    • Presence of Relevant Dissimilarities

  • Enumerative Argument: Making claims based on observations and samples. Evaluation based on:

    • Individual/Sample Group/Population

    • Statistical Induction

    • Size, Variation, Randomness, Representativeness of the sample.

Probability Theories Defined:

Classical Theory of Probability:

  • Probability calculated as \( rac{favorable ext{ outcomes}}{total ext{ outcomes}}\

Relative Frequency Theory of Probability:

  • Probability determined by \( rac{observed ext{ favorable outcomes}}{total ext{ observed outcomes}}\

  • Comparison of both theories lies in the differences in calculative foundations.

Informal Fallacies Revisited (Ch. 32, p. 2-19)

Key Fallacies Identified:

  • Fallacies of No Evidence: Including but not limited to:

    • Begging the Question, Red Herring, Genetic Fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance, Straw Man.

  • Fallacies of Little Evidence: Includes Hasty Generalization, Slippery Slope, and other relevant fallacies.

Application Concepts:

  • Explaining Fallacies: Ability to identify and describe how given arguments commit specific fallacies.

  • Distinguishing Features: Understanding unique aspects of various fallacies to ensure logical rigor in arguments.