Philosophy 1250 Final Exam

Strict necessity test

- An argument's conclusion either follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it does not. - If the argument's conclusion does follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the argument should always be treated as deductive. - If the argument's conclusion does not follow with strict logical necessity from its premises, the argument should normally be treated as inductive. The strict necessity test determines if an argument is deductive or inductive by checking if the conclusion logically follows from the premises, like a key fitting perfectly into a lock or not.

inductive indicator words

- Probably - Improbable - Plausible - Implausible - Likely - Unlikely - Reasonable to conclude - Odds are that - Chances are that - One would expect - It is a good bet that - It is plausible to suppose that

Fallacies of insufficient evidence

Fallacies of insufficient evidence are like building a weak bridge with not enough materials, where the premises are relevant to the conclusion but lack enough evidence to support it, leading to flawed reasoning.

Affirming the Consequent

If A then B B Therefore, A Affirming the Consequent is like saying if it's raining, then the ground is wet, the ground is wet, therefore it must be raining - but it could also be wet for other reasons.

Modus Ponens

If A then B. Not A. Therefore, not B. Modus Ponens is like a logical detective - if you have evidence that A implies B, and you know A is false, then you can confidently conclude that B is also false.

Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)

If A then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. Modus Tollens is like detective work - if a certain outcome (B) doesn't happen, then we can conclude that the initial condition (A) must not have occurred either.

Bandwagon

The bandwagon fallacy is like jumping on a crowded train just because everyone else is doing it, assuming it must be the right thing to do.

unsound argument

a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both. An unsound argument is like a broken bridge made of false pieces, leading to an incorrect conclusion.

sound argument

a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises. A sound argument is like a sturdy bridge built with solid materials, where each piece of evidence is true and the logical structure is strong, ensuring that the conclusion is also true.

predictive argument

a prediction is defended with reasons. A predictive argument is like a detective making a guess about who committed a crime and then providing evidence to support their guess.

premise

a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

deductive validity

a property of some logical arguments such that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion(s) to be false. Deductive validity means that if the premises of a logical argument are true, then the conclusion(s) must also be true, like a perfectly fitting puzzle where all the pieces align perfectly.

Statement

a sentence that is either true or false.

argument

a set of statements, one of which appears to be implied or supported by the others. An argument is like a group of friends trying to convince you to go to a party - they present a series of statements, and one of them seems to be supported by the others, making it more convincing.

Relativism

the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute truths.

Conclusion

the statement in an argument that the premises are claimed to support or imply.

deductive indicator words

- Certainly - Definitely - Absolutely - Conclusively - It logically follows that - It is logical to conclude that - This logically implies that - This entails that

Tips on Finding the Conclusion of an Argument

- Find the main issue and ask yourself what position the writers or speaker is taking on that issue. - Look at the beginning or end of the passage; the conclusion is often (but not always) found in one of those places. - Try putting the word therefore before one of the statements. f it fits, that statement is probably the conclusion. - Try the "because" trick. That is, try to find the most appropriate way to fill in the blanks in the following statement: The writer or speaker believes ____________ (conclusion) because ____________ (premise) The conclusion will naturally come before the word because.

What is not an argument?

- reports - unsupported assertions - conditional statements - illustrations - explanations

Common Patterns of inductive reasoning

1. Inductive generalization 2. Predictive argument 3. Argument from authority 4. Causal argument 5. Statistical argument 6. Argument from analogy

categorical syllogism

A categorical syllogism is like a logical puzzle with three statements that use words like "all," "some," or "no" to connect ideas, helping us make conclusions about relationships between things.

Argument

A claim put forth and supported by evidence.

argument from definition

A deductive argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion. The argument from definition is like saying "all squares have four equal sides, this shape has four equal sides, therefore it must be a square" - it relies solely on the definition of a square to make the conclusion.

questionable cause (post hoc)

A fallacy that occurs when a speaker alleges something that does not relate to or produce the outcome claimed in the argument. "Of course it rained, i just washed my car." Questionable cause (post hoc) is like blaming the rain for washing your car just because it happened after you washed it, but there's no evidence that the rain actually caused it.

Ought Imperative

A sentence that has the form of an imperative or command but is intended to assert a value or ought judgment about what is good or bad or right or wrong An "Ought Imperative" is like a command, but instead of telling you what to do, it expresses a judgment about what is good or bad, right or wrong, like a moral compass guiding your actions.

logical irrelevance

A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it counts neither for nor against that statement. Imagine you're playing a game of basketball, and someone starts talking about the weather - their comment is logically irrelevant because it doesn't affect the outcome of the game.

conditional statement

A statement that can be written in if-then form. If p, then q. (p->q) if is called the Antecedent, and then is called the Consequent. These statements are not arguments because there is no claim that any statement follows from any part of thre conditional statement. A conditional statement is like a promise - if something happens (the antecedent), then something else will happen (the consequent), but it doesn't mean the consequent will actually happen.

rhetorical statement

A statement that has the grammatical form of a question but is meant to be understood as a statement. A rhetorical statement is like a question that doesn't need an answer, it's just a way of making a point or emphasizing something, like when someone asks "Is the sky blue?" to highlight the obvious.

Tu Quoque Fallacy (look who's taking)

A type of fallacy of distraction where one points to an inconsistency between a person's argument and behavior. Not a fallacy if the behavior in question is legitimate. Latin for "Yeah? Well, you do it too!" x fails to follow their own advice. therefore, x's claims or argument should be rejected. The Tu Quoque Fallacy is like a playground argument where someone tries to deflect criticism by pointing out that the other person does the same thing, but it's only a fallacy if the behavior is actually wrong.

inductive reasoning

A type of logic in which generalizations are based on a large number of specific observations. Inductive reasoning is like collecting puzzle pieces - the more pieces you gather, the clearer the picture becomes; similarly, the more specific observations you make, the stronger your generalizations become.

argument based on mathematics

An argument based on mathematics is like building a strong case using numbers and calculations, where the conclusion relies solely on the outcome of those mathematical operations, just like a lawyer presenting evidence to convince a jury.

valid argument

An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Think of a valid argument like a well-built bridge - if the premises (supporting beams) are strong and logically connected, then the conclusion (the other side of the bridge) can be reached safely.

strong inductive argument

An argument such that if the premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusion is probably true. In other words, if the premises are assumed to be true, then it is improbable that the conclusion is false. A strong inductive argument is like a detective gathering lots of evidence that strongly suggests a suspect is guilty, even though it's not 100% certain.

Argument from Authority

An argument that concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness has said that it is. Imagine you're in court and the judge believes a statement just because a famous lawyer said it, without considering other evidence - that's the Argument from Authority.

weak inductive argument

An inductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises even though it is claimed to do so. A weak inductive argument is like a broken bridge - even though it claims to lead you to the other side, it's not reliable and might collapse before you reach your destination.

Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam)

Arguments that distract by making the audience feel sorry for the speaker or someone on behalf of whom the speaker is arguing. Appeal to Pity is when someone tries to win an argument by making you feel sorry for them or someone else, instead of using logical reasons. It's like a magician distracting you with a sad story instead of showing you how the trick works.

The Author's Intent Test

Ask if the person making the statement is trying to "prove" something or explain why something is true. The Author's Intent Test is like asking if someone is trying to convince you of something or simply providing an explanation. It's like distinguishing between a lawyer arguing a case and a scientist presenting evidence.

Loaded Question Fallacy

Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty. A loaded question is like a sneaky trap - it's when someone asks you something that assumes something negative about you, making it impossible to answer without looking bad.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

Begging the question is like trying to prove something by using a similar idea, but it's like going in circles instead of moving forward, just like trying to read illegible handwriting.

cultural relativism

Cultural relativism is the position that there is no universal standard to measure cultures by, and that all cultural values and beliefs must be understood relative to their cultural context, and not judged based on outside norms and values.

Two wrongs make a right

Defending or justifying our wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done by someone else. The concept of "two wrongs make a right" is like trying to justify your own wrongdoing by pointing out someone else's wrongdoing, but it doesn't actually make your actions right. It's like saying stealing is okay because someone else stole too.

Consistency

Doing the same

common pattern test

If A, then B A Therefore, B (MODUS PONENS) The common pattern test, also known as Modus Ponens, is like a logical recipe: if you have a rule (A implies B) and a fact (A), then you can conclude the result (B) with certainty, just like following a recipe step by step.

Chain Argument

If A, then B If B, then C Therefore, if A, then C An argument consisting of three conditional claims, in which the antecedents of one premise and the conclusion are the same, the consequents of the other premise and the conclusion are the same, and the consequent of the first premise and the antecedent of the second premise are the same. The chain argument is like a series of dominoes, where if the first one falls (A), it knocks down the second one (B), which then knocks down the third one (C), showing that if A is true, then C must also be true.

Chain Argument

If A, then B If B, then C Therefore, if A, then C Think of a chain where each link represents a logical connection: if the first link is true, then the second link is true, and if the second link is true, then the third link is true. So, if the first link is true, then the third link must also be true.

common knowledge test

If it points at something that is common knowledge, it is probably an explanation. Imagine you're taking a test and the question points to something everyone knows, like the sky being blue - the answer is likely an explanation because it's common knowledge.

The Past-Event Test

Is the statement that the passage is seeking to prove or explain an event that occurred in the past? If so the passage is probably an explanation rather than an argument because it is much more common to try to explain why past events occurred rather than to prove that they occurred. The Past-Event Test helps determine if a passage is explaining or arguing by asking if it's discussing a past event, as explanations are more common for past events than proving their occurrence.

Indicator word test

Looking at the words between the premise and the conclusion of an argument, determines what kind of argument it is.

Fallacies of Relevance

Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Fallacies of relevance are like trying to solve a math problem using irrelevant information - it's a mistake in reasoning when the premises don't actually support the conclusion.

Inappropriate Appeal to Authority

Occurs when an arguer cites an authority who, there is good reason to believe, is unreliable.

Attacking the Motive Fallacy

Occurs when one person argues that another person's position is invalid solely due to motives that could affect the claim. Attacking the Motive Fallacy is like dismissing someone's argument just because you think they have ulterior motives, without actually addressing the validity of their claim. It's like saying a doctor's medical advice is wrong because they're trying to sell you their own product.

UNSUPORTED ASSERTION

Statement about what a speaker or writer happens to believe. These can be true or false. rational or irrational, but they are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that the statement follows from, or supports, another claim.

postive relevance

Statement that is positively relevant to another statement if it counts in favor of that statement. Positive relevance is like adding a point in favor of an argument, just like how a basketball player scores a point for their team.

mere correlation fallacy (questionable cause)

The mere correlation fallacy is like assuming that because two things often happen together, one must cause the other, even though there isn't enough evidence to support that claim. It's like saying that because people carry umbrellas when it rains, umbrellas cause rain.

Relevance

The quality of information that indicates the information makes a difference in a decision.

Moral Subjectivism

The view that moral values are relative to each person's subjective preferences.

Cultural Moral Relativism

The view that what is morally good for individual A is what A believes is morally right and good for everyone else. Cultural Moral Relativism is like a pair of glasses that each person wears, where what they see as morally good is based on their own beliefs, and they think everyone else should see the same way.

Unwarranted assumptions

Things we take for granted without good reason, An example, being attracted to someone might cause you to assume that they feel the same way and thus interpret their behaviors as such, without ever knowing.

Fairness

Thinking Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice

explanation

Tries to show WHY something is the case, not to prove that it is the case. Has two parts, The statement that is explained is the explanandum, The statement that does the explaining is the explanans. An explanation is like a detective's reasoning - it tries to uncover the "why" behind something by providing evidence (explanans) to support a statement (explanandum).

Duductive arguments

Try to PROVE their conclusions with rigorous inescapable logic. Deductive arguments are like a detective's investigation, where they gather evidence and use logical reasoning to prove their conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Scare Tactics/Appeal to Fear

Uses fear to persuade people to perform a certain action or to adopt a certain belief. Scare tactics or appeal to fear is like a horror movie trailer that tries to make you scared so you'll go see the movie, but in this case, it's used to make you do something or believe something.

principle of charity test

We always interpret unclear passages generously and, in particular, that we never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us to interpret it as not an argument at all. The principle of charity test is like giving someone the benefit of the doubt - we interpret unclear passages in a positive light, assuming they are not bad arguments unless evidence proves otherwise.

Equivocation

When a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an argument. Equivocation is like a sneaky trick where a writer uses a word with two different meanings to make their argument seem stronger, but it's actually misleading.

negative relevance

X has negative relevance to Y, if X provides evidence that Y is false. Example: Marty is a high-school senior. So Marty likely has a Ph.D. Negative relevance means that if X provides evidence that Y is false, then X has negative relevance to Y, like how Marty being a high-school senior makes it unlikely for him to have a Ph.D.

ad hominem fallacy

a fallacy of logic in which a person's character or motive is attacked instead of that person's argument. The ad hominem fallacy is like trying to win an argument by insulting the person making the argument instead of addressing their actual points, it's like saying someone's cooking is bad just because you don't like them.

logical fallacy

a mistake in reasoning. A logical fallacy is like a trap in your thinking, where you make a mistake in your reasoning that leads to a wrong conclusion, just like stepping into a hidden hole while walking.

Inductive Generalization

a non-deductive argument which concludes that all or most members of a set of things have some property because a representative number of things in the set have that property. Inductive generalization is like saying all dogs are friendly because most of the dogs you've met have been friendly, but it's not a guarantee that all dogs will be friendly.

stereotype

a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person(s) or thing.

invalid deductive argument

an argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. An invalid deductive argument is like a broken bridge - even if all the pieces are solid (true premises), there's still a chance you could fall (false conclusion) because the structure doesn't hold up.

argument from analogy

an argument that depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between two things or states of affairs. The argument from analogy is like saying that if two things are similar in certain ways, they are likely to be similar in other ways too. It's like comparing two different recipes and assuming they will taste similar because they have similar ingredients.

strong argument

an inductive argument that does in fact provide probable support for its conclusion. A strong argument is like a sturdy bridge - it may not guarantee you'll reach the other side, but it gives you a good chance of getting there safely based on the evidence and reasoning provided.

cogent argument

an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. A cogent argument is like a sturdy bridge made of strong materials (true premises) that leads you to a solid conclusion, giving you confidence in its reliability.

uncogent argument

an inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, fails to meet the total evidence requirement, or any combination of these. An uncogent argument is like a wobbly stool with missing legs - it's weak, has false information, doesn't consider all the evidence, or a mix of these flaws.

indicator words

are words or phrases that provide clues that premises or conclusions are being put forward.

Causal Argument

asserts or denies that something is the cause of something else. A causal argument is like a detective's theory - it asserts or denies that one thing caused another, just like how a detective might say a suspect caused a crime based on evidence.

Premise Indicators

because, since, for, for example, for the reason that, in that, given that, as indicated by, due to, owing to, this can be seen from, we know this by

clarity

clearness in thought or expression

Oversimplified Cause Fallacy (questionable cause)

committed when we assume, without adequate evidence, that A is the sole cause of B when, in fact, there are several causes of B. The Oversimplified Cause Fallacy is like assuming that eating one specific food caused you to get sick, when in reality, there could be multiple factors that contributed to your illness.

Critical thinking

disciplined thinking that that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence. Governed by intellectual standards, among these standards are, Clarity, Accuracy, Relevance, Consistency, Logical Correctness, Completeness, and Fairness.

appeal to ignorance fallacy

error of assuming that a claim must be true because no one has shown it to be false. The appeal to ignorance fallacy is like assuming something is true just because no one has proven it false, which is like saying a unicorn exists because no one has proven it doesn't.

Sociocentrism

group-centered thinking (can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the group) Common forms: group bias, tribalism, and conformism.

straw man fallacy

instead of dealing with the actual issue, it attacks a weaker version of argument. Imagine you're in a debate and your opponent misrepresents your argument by creating a weak, easily defeated "straw man" version of it, so they can avoid addressing your actual points.

illustration

intended to provide support examples of a claim rather than prove or convincingly support the claim. An illustration is like a sidekick that helps a superhero (claim) by providing examples and support, but it doesn't have the power to prove or strongly support the claim on its own.

Completeness

means that all the information that is necessary for faithful representation is provided

false alternatives (fallacious argument)

occurs when only two options are provided, one of which is generally presented as the poor choice or one that should be avoided. False alternatives, or fallacious arguments, are like being forced to choose between eating a rotten apple or starving, when in reality there are many other options available.

invalid argument

one in which it is not necessary that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. An invalid argument is like a leaky umbrella - even if the premises (the umbrella) are true, the conclusion (staying dry) may not be guaranteed.

deductive reasoning

reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case (The sun rises every morning; therefore, the sun will rise on Tuesday morning.) Deductive reasoning is like using a rule to solve a puzzle - you start with a general principle and apply it to a specific situation to reach a conclusion, just like knowing the sun rises every morning and using that to predict it will rise on Tuesday morning.

Accuracy

refers to how close a measured value is to an accepted value

statistical argument

rests on statistical evidence-that is, evidence that some percentage of some group or class has some particular characteristic. A statistical argument is like building a case in court, where you present evidence that a certain percentage of a group has a specific characteristic, just like a lawyer presents evidence to prove their case.

Argument by Elimination

seeks to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains. Argument by elimination is like solving a mystery by eliminating suspects one by one until only the guilty one is left, using logic to rule out possibilities until only one option remains.

Logical Correctness

sound reasoning/valid inferences. Deriving that—and only that—which can be justifiably derived from statements/premises.

Reports

structured presentation of data using sorting, grouping, filtering, and other operations

Egocentrism

the tendency of people to be concerned above all with their own values, beliefs, and well-being. Two common forms are: Self interested thinking and the Superiority Bias.

conclusion indicator words

therefore, thus, so, consequently, it follows that, we can conclude that, ergo, hence, in light of this, we can infer that, accordingly, so, that is why, wherefore, as a result, this being so, for this reason, which shows that, this implies that.

Hypothetical Syllogism

three line argument that consists of exactly two premises and a conclusion.

inductive arguments

try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely given the premises. Inductive arguments are like detectives gathering evidence to make a case, they use premises as clues to make a conclusion that is likely or plausible, but not guaranteed.

red herring fallacy

when a speaker introduces an irrelevant issue or piece of evidence to divert attention from the subject of the speech. A red herring fallacy is like a sneaky distraction in a speech, where the speaker brings up something unrelated to divert attention from the main topic, just like a fisherman using a smelly fish to distract a hunting dog.

Principle of Charity

when interpreting someone's argument, we should always try to identify the best version of the argument that the author could plausibly have intended to put forward. (borderline case between and argument and illistration) The Principle of Charity is like putting on someone else's glasses to see their argument clearly, making sure to consider the best possible version they could have intended.