Argument Final

Sentences Particular Quantity and Quality

-All S are P (Universal + Particular) -No S are P (Universal + Negative) -Some S are P (Particular + Affirmative) -Some S are not P (Particular + Negative)

Square of Opposition: Contrary Statements

-Deals with the universals. -Both cannot be true -We cannot infer anything if we know one statement is false. --Ex: If A is true then E will be false

Quantity

-Either universal or particular, depending on whether the statement makes a claim about all (universal) or some (particular) members of the class picked out by the subject term. -Universal: (All S are P and No S are P) -Particular: (Some S are P and Some S are not P)

Complex Question

-Fallacy of Presumption -Occurs when a single question actually contains multiple, hidden parts. The questioner tries to force a single answer (often a 'yes' or 'no' answer) that, in turn, is used against the respondent. --Ex: Do you still have sex with prostitutes? --Ex: When did you stop smoking weed?

Conversion

-Switch subject and predicate --Ex: All A are B --Converse: All B are A -Works on E and I statements

False Dichotomy

--Fallacy of Presumption -The arguer presents two alternatives as a dis-junction ("either...or...") and then eliminates the less desirable option and concludes that the remaining option must be accepted. -Will usually have the valid argument form of a disjunctive syllogism • Either A or B. • Not A. • Therefore, B. -Occurs when the argument assumes there are only two choices, when in fact others exist. --Ex: Either you agree with me or you are an idiot.

Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc

-A False Cause Fallacy -Also known as "after this, therefore on account of this" -This is a fallacy that occurs when it is noticed that one thing takes place before another and then it is assumed that the first thing caused the second. -Argument depends on the assumption that •Evidence: X happened before Y •Conclusion: • X caused Y --Ex: Most people who are read their last rites die shortly afterwards. Priests are going around killing people with magic words!

Non Causa Pro Causa

-A False Cause Fallacy -Also known as "not the cause for the cause" -This fallacy occurs when an argument rests on an assumption that "X causes Y" when in fact X does not cause Y and the mistake rests on something other than the temporal connection between X and Y. • X causes Y 1) In reality: X and Y are unrelated (correlation is coincidence) 2) In reality: Z causes (X and Y) 3) In reality: Y causes (or is one cause of) X --Ex: I always hold my breath when going through a tunnel, and no tunnels have ever collapsed on me, therefore my method of going through tunnels safely is a good one.

Slippery Slope

-A False Cause Fallacy -Sometimes when we reason causally we do so with a chain of causal inferences. If we have good reason to believe each link in the chain then we may have a strong argument. -If there is little or no evidence for one or more of the causal connections in the argument, it is invalid. -Notice that even if there is strong support for each connection but there are a lot of connections, you may still have a weak argument. --Ex: If you start smoking marijuana for pleasure then you will need more and more to achieve the expected high. You will begin to rely on it whenever you feel depressed. Eventually you will experiment with more powerful drugs that act faster and last longer. Then, you will die from an OD Therefore you shouldn't smoke marijuana.

Oversimplified Cause

-A False Cause Fallacy -This fallacy occurs when an event has many causes, but one cause is focused on as the only (or main) cause. -Argument rests on the assump1on that: • X causes Y • In reality: U+V+W+X cause Y --Ex: Plants need water to live. Therefore if I pull my plant out of its soil and place it in a dark room and be sure to water it daily it should do just fine!

Gambler's Fallacy

-A False Cause Fallacy -This is a specific fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that independent events in, for instance, a game of chance are causally related. -Specifically the fallacy occurs when the arguer assumes that, because an event has happened with more frequency in the past it will occur with less frequency in the future, or vice versa. --Ex: I just flipped this coin 24 times and they all landed on heads. I'm sure the 25th time it will land on tails.

Quality

-A categorical proposition is either affirmative or negative depending on whether it claims class membership between the subject and predicate, or denies it. --Affirmative: (All S are P and Some S are P) --Negative: (No S are P and Some S are not P)

Amphiboly

-Ambiguity that arises when a poorly constructed statement muddles the intended meaning. -When a conclusion follows from an ambiguous statement, especially if it relies on a likely misunderstanding of an ambiguous statement, this fallacy has occurred. --Ex: John said that in his backyard a bird did not see his cat hunched on all fours ready to pounce but suddenly he flew away. Apparently John's cat can fly.

Appeal to Ignorance

-An appeal to ignorance makes one of two mistakes (1) A claim is made that a statement must be true because it has not been proven to be false. (2) A claim is made that a statement must be false because it has not been proven to be true. -If, however, a good faith effort has been made to uncover the sort of evidence that we would expect if a statement is true (false) and none can be found we may be able to draw a justified conclusion. --Ex: UFOs exist because nobody has proven that they don't exist. --Ex: There is no life anywhere else in the universe. We have never received signals from any part of space.

Division

-An attribute of an object as a whole is mistakenly transferred to its individual parts. --Ex: Yao Ming is huge! Therefore, his cells must all be huge.

Composition

-An attribute of the individual parts of an object is mistakenly transferred to the entire object. --Ex: All the cells in Yao Ming's body are tiny. Therefore Yao Ming is tiny!

Appeal to Unqualified Authority

-An authority's opinion is only good evidence when considering the subject upon which they are an authority. --Ex: I'm Nick Panning, quarterback of the Las Angeles Seals. I've been eating Oaties for breakfast since I was a kid. Oaties provides nutrition and vitamins and helps build strong bones. You should get some for your kids.

Obversion

-Change quality (not quantity) and replace predicate with the term compliment --Ex: Some A are B --Obverse: Some A are not non-B -Works on A, E, I, O

Square of Opposition: Subcontrary

-Deals with particular -Both cannot be false -We cannot infer anything is we know one statement is true. --Ex: If I is false then O will be true.

Begging the Question

-Fallacy of Presumption -An argument commits this fallacy when it assumes as evidence the very thing that it attempts to prove in the conclusion, or assumes something that is under dispute at least as much dispute as the conclusion. -Something to note is that many of these arguments will have valid structures, that is if the premises are true the conclusion is true. However, they are only sound if the premise is true, and so if you don't already accept that the conclusion is true (since the conclusion is smuggled into the premises) you are not given any new reason to accept that the conclusion is true. -Occurs when the conclusion either restates a premise or relies on a premise that is shaky. --Ex: Jane has the highest GPA among all the seniors in my class. There are 300 graduating seniors in my class. Therefore, no senior has a higher GPA. --Ex: The murder of a human being is always wrong. Abortion is the murdering of an embryo or fetus, both of which are human beings. Therefore, abortion is always wrong.

Suppressed Evidence

-Fallacy of Presumption -Recall that a cogent argument is a strong argument with all true premises. There is an additional requirement, the argument cannot ignore some important piece of evidence that would weaken the argument. If it ignores some evidence that would make it weaker, it commits this fallacy. -The new Skinny Sally cookies have 30% fewer calories than their original cookies. Therefore I can eat them and not worry about my calorie intake. (What is missing from this is that the original cookies contained 3000 calories per cookie. Thus the new cookies contain 2100 calories per cookie, which is still quite a few calories).

Existential Import

-If a sentence implies the existence of things denoted by the subject it has existential import. -Notice that universal sentences can be true even if their subject does not exist. Hence: "All dragons have claws" is true, not because all of the actually dragons have claws, but because there are no counterexamples (no dragons flying around without claws). -Existential import is a concern for universal statements: All S are P and No S are P -But not for particular statements: Some S are P and Some S are not P -This can conflict with validity of statements

Existential Import: Universal Affirmative

-If a universal affirmative sentence does not have existential import both it and its negative universal counterpart will be true --Ex: All unicorns have horns --Ex: No unicorns have horns have *Both have existential import because there are no counter examples

Middle Term

-It is found in both the major and minor premise Some ... are M No ... are M Therefore, All ... are ...

False Cause

-Occurs when an argument relies on a claim about a causal relationship that is actually either nonexistent, or is a weak connection --Non-Existent Casual Connection: If I kiss the roof of my car the yellow light will not turn red. --Weak Casual Connection: If I drink a cup of coffee before the exam I will do well.

Equivocation

-Occurs when the meaning of a term is shifted during the course of an argument. -My older brother tries hard to be cool. I told him that since a refrigerator is a good place to keep things cool, he should spend some time there.

Square of Opposition: Contradictions

-Only part from the square that is both Boolean (Modern) and Aristotle -Opposite Truth Value --Ex: If I is true then E is false

Existential Fallacy

-Part of Aristitilan standpoint -Can only be determined after conditional validity is established -This occurs when the subject term does not actually exist in real life.

Conditional Validity

-Part of Aristitilan standpoint -Can only be determined if the Boolean standpoint finds the two Venn Diagrams Invalid and the conclusion is particular -To find this, you assume that the subject exists and then see if the x's line up

Fallacies of Ambiguity

-Result when words, phrases, or sentences fail to hold the same meaning throughout the argument, or where the intended meaning is unclear. -Includes Equivocation and Amphiboly

Boolean Standpoint

-Said no universal statements have existential import. -So: "All cats are mammals" does not imply that cats exist -What we gain: by stipulating that no universal statements have existential import we retain a notion of validity that is content neutral. That is, we can tell whether an argument form is valid based just on the form. -What we lose: we will lose some arguments that were valid under the Aristotelian standpoint, particularly those arguments that relied on the existential import of universal statements.

Contrapositive

-Switch the two terms and replace them with their compliments --Ex: Some A are not B --Contra: Some non-B are not non-A -Works on A and O

Minor Term

-The Subject term -It's always the first part of the conclusion Some ... are ... No S are ... Therefore, All S are ...

Major Term

-The predicate term -It's always at the end of the conclusion Some P are ... No ... are ... Therefore, All ... are P

Major Premise

-The premise that comes first [Some A are B] No C are B Therefore, All C are A

Minor Premise

-The premise that comes second Some A are B [No C are B] Therefore, All C are A

Variety of Things

-The strength is related to the variety of things referred to in the first premise. If the first premise uses different sorts of things that all share the properties in question then generally the argument will be stronger. --Ex: If the arguer had pointed out that lots of people of different ages and fashion senses all wear the shirt this would strengthen the argument.

Relevance of the Characteristics

-The strength of the argument is related to the relevance of the characteristics referred to in the first premise. Relevance is the single most important factor in determining the strength of an analogical argument. -Relevance of any particular characteristic depends on how it is related to the conclusion. --Ex: My Ford Fusion Hybrid and your Hummer are the same color. My vehicle averages 40 miles to the gallon. Therefore your vehicle will probably average 40 miles to the gallon.

Quantifiers

-The words all, no, and some are called the quantifiers. -They tell use how much (what quantity of) the subject class is included in/excluded from the predicate class.

Copula

-The words are, and are not are called the copula. -They link together (couple together) the subject term and the predicate term.

Fallacies of Illicit Transference

-These fallacies involve incorrectly concluding that a part has a property of the whole, or that a whole has a property of one of its parts. -Includes Composition and Division

Fallacies of Presumption

-They start with a false or un-warranted assumption upon which the conclusion rests, and so fail to establish their conclusion. -Includes Begging the question, Complex question, False dichotomy, and Suppressed evidence

Hasty Generalization

-This fallacy involves a generalization about the members of a group from evidence about a sample of that group. -Occurs when a generalization is made from a very small sample, or from a sample that is likely not representative. --Ex: I saw a fraternity guy act rudely to a fast-food employee in the food court at lunch today. Probably most fraternity and sorority members are rude and arrogant. --Ex: 1,000,000 people total were asked in San Francisco, CA and New York City, NY and 89% of them said they supported same-sex marriage. Clearly the vast majority of Americans are in favor of keeping same-sex marriage legal.

Weak Analogy

-This fallacy is committed when an argument depends on an analogy, but the analogy is too weak to support the conclusion. -The most common violation will be that the characteristics in common are not relevant to the conclusion, although an analogy could be evaluated as weak based on any of the previous criteria. -Another common example involves an analogy that fails to mention a relevant dissimilarity. --Ex: I have a lot in common with a police officer. We're both human, we both eat food regularly, and we both have jobs. Police don't get tickets when they run red lights. Therefore I probably won't either. --Ex: Dark allies are like haunted houses. Both are dimly lit, creepy, and have the poten1al for people to jump out at you.

Square of Opposition: Subalternation

-Truth flows down, falsity flows up --Ex: If A is true then I is also true

Existential Import: Particular Statements

-When we read a particular statement we always read it as "there exists at least one..." so for "Some S are P" to be true it must be the case that at least one S exists. --Ex: "Some rabbits are furry" is true because there is at least one rabbit out there and that rabbit is actually furry. --Ex: "Some round squares are geometric shapes" can't be true because no round squares exist. -Of course, just knowing that the subject we are talking about exists doesn't mean the statement is true. --Ex: "Some dogs are not mammals" is false, even though there is at least one dog out there.

Aristotelian Standpoint

Said the existential import of universal statements was determined by its content.

Number of Things

The strength is related to the number of things referred to in the first premise. A larger comparison class will generally strengthen the argument.

Number of Characteristics

The strength of the argument is related to the number of characteristics (properties) that are mentioned in the first premise. Analogical arguments that highlight more shared characteristics tend to be stronger.

Subject Term

The term that comes first in a standard-form categorical statement.

Predicate Term

The term that comes second in a standard-form categorical statement.

Categorical Propositions

These are statements (sentences that are either true or false) that relate two classes, or categories.

What Four Main Things make Analogical Argument

1. Number of things 2. Variety of things 3. Number of characteristics 4. Relevance of the characteristics