Comprehensive Study Guide on the Nature of Logic and Reasoning
Fundamentals of Logic and Reasoning/Argument/Argumentative Discourse (RAD)
Definition of Logic: Logic is the academic discipline that studies reasoning, argument, and argumentative discourse (hereafter RAD).
Definition of RAD: RAD is a specific type of discourse that attempts to prove a conclusion is true by appealing to supporting evidence.
Components of RAD:
RAD consists strictly of two structural components: premises and conclusions.
Premises: Evidence claims adduced in support of other claims.
Conclusions: Claims on behalf of which premises are adduced.
Example of RAD:
Premise 1: All people are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a person.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Academic and Career Importance of RAD:
Proficiency in reasoning within one's area of specialization is necessary for success in academic and professional careers.
Informational Discourse and Alternative Discourse Types
Informational Discourse (ID):
ID is the type of discourse that seeks to describe states of affairs in the empirically observable world accurately or truthfully.
Empirically Observable World: The world accessible via the five human senses, either unaided or aided by enhancers such as microscopes and telescopes.
Examples of Informational Claims:
"Mark Carney is Prime Minister of Canada."
"Toronto is located on the north shore of Lake Ontario."
Importance of ID: Students must accumulate substantial information in their areas of specialization to achieve academic and professional success.
Narrative and Storytelling Discourse:
Narrative or story-telling discourse is highly valuable but marginalized or ignored in university education.
Skill in storytelling can carry more "social capital" in an academic or professional career than prowess in RAD and ID combined.
Dentist Metaphor:
Given two technically proficient dentists, patients prefer a dentist who tells great stories while working over one who is silent or engages in idle chatter.
Despite its importance, the university provides almost no instruction in the art of storytelling.
Structure and Properties of Claims
Role of Claims: Premises and conclusions in RAD must be claims.
Three Essential Properties of Claims:
Express complete thoughts as assertions (rather than questions or exclamations).
Do not require a context to possess meaning (though context can supplement meaning).
Are strictly either true or false.
Examples of Valid Claims:
"If you are going west, north is on your right-hand side."
"I am taking an on-line course this summer."
Examples of Non-Claims:
Exclamations (e.g., "Wow!").
Questions (e.g., "How do I get to Canada's Wonderland?").
Incomplete thoughts (e.g., "Seeing is believing because…").
The Function and Role of Evidence in RAD
Definition of Evidence: Evidence consists of reasons expressed as claims (premises) for believing that another claim (conclusion) is true.
Example of Evidence in RAD:
In the argument: "All people are mortal, Socrates is a person, therefore, Socrates is mortal," the evidence for the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is supplied by the premise claims "All people are mortal" and "Socrates is a person."
Indispensability of Evidence: Logic and RAD are impossible without evidence because having no premises means having no conclusions.
Criteria for Identifying Premises and Conclusions
1. Indicator-Word Criterion:
Uses explicit signaling words to identify premises and conclusions.
Premise Indicator Words: "if," "because," "since," "for," "given the fact that," "in light of," "in view of," "seeing that."
Conclusion Indicator Words: "then," "therefore," "thus," "hence," "consequently," "it follows that," "so."
Example: In "Since I didn't see it, therefore I don't believe it," the premise follows "Since" ("I didn't see it") and the conclusion follows "therefore" ("I don't believe it").
Limitation: Indicator words are not always present in RAD, so this criterion cannot be exclusively relied upon.
2. Function Criterion:
Identifies components by analyzing the role or function each claim plays within the argument.
Premise Function: To provide evidence for a conclusion.
Conclusion Function: To state the claim that the premises purport to prove as true.
Example: In "I didn't see it; I don't believe it" (lacking indicator words), the first claim functions to supply evidence, making "I didn't see it" the premise, while the second claim states what is being proven, making "I don't believe it" the conclusion.
3. Evidence Criterion:
Identifies components based on whether a claim requires supporting evidence.
Premises: Claims in RAD that do not need evidence to prove that they are true.
Conclusions: Claims in RAD that do need evidence to prove that they are true.
Example: In "I didn't see it; I don't believe it":
"I didn't see it" requires no evidence; a police officer issuing a traffic ticket for running a red light does not ask why a driver failed to see the light—the violation stands regardless. Thus, it is the premise.
"I don't believe it" requires evidence; stating disbelief prompts others to ask why, unless the claim is patently unbelievable (e.g., "I don't believe that Mark Carney is the Prime Minister of Canada"). Thus, it is the conclusion.
RAD Versus Argumentation
Definition of Argumentation: Argumentation is RAD involving multiple parties arguing about the same topic or issue, where each party tries to prove either the same conclusion or different conclusions.
Example of Argumentation:
Party 1 argues that in "I didn't see it; I don't believe it," the premise "I didn't see it" is relevant and sufficient to establish the conclusion.
Party 2 argues that the premise "I didn't see it" is neither relevant nor sufficient to establish the conclusion.
Scope of Logic Instruction:
Focuses on single-party RAD where one party (or a consensus group acting as a single party) identifies and evaluates argument components.
Sample Writing Assignments
Assignment 1: Differences Among Identification Criteria:
RAD comprises premises (claims attempting to prove conclusions) and conclusions (claims stating what is being proven).
Indicator Word Criterion: Premises begin with terms like "if," "because," "for," "since"; conclusions begin with terms like "then," "therefore," "thus."
Function Criterion: Premises function to provide evidence; conclusions function to state what premises attempt to prove.
Evidence Criterion: Premises require no evidence; conclusions require supporting evidence.
Assignment 2: Summary of Chapter 1:
Logic studies RAD, which consists of claims structured as premises and conclusions.
Claims express complete assertions, have standalone meaning, and hold truth values.
Premises provide evidence, while conclusions require evidence.
Identification relies on indicator word, function, or evidence criteria.
Without evidence, RAD and logic are impossible.
RAD and ID are fundamental for academic and career achievement.