Critical Thinking

When using chain reasoning, what two ways can a single statement function?

1. As a conclusion 2. As a reason for a further conclusion

What are the two requirements that a good argument must have?

1. It must have true premises (reasons) 2. Given the premises are true, the premises and the conclusion must be related in such a way that the premise guarantees the truth of the conclusion

What requirements make a sound. Arguement?

1. True premises(reasons) 2. The premises and conclusion must be related in a way that we. Would be convinced of the truth of the conclusion

How would a convergent diagram be shown?

2 3 ⬇️ ⬇️ 1-------1 Or 2 3 ↘️ ↙️ 1

Use linked reasoning to show the following 1/let Paul play as striker/ [<because>] 2/he always gets at least one goal/ and 3/we need to score against this team to stay in the tournament/

2 he always gets 3 we need to score at least one against this team goal ➕ to stay in the tournament __________________________ ⬇️ 1 let paul play as striker today

Hypothesis

A belief, theory or proposition for which there is enough support to suggest that is a possibility

Imply or implication

A claim that follows from other claims. One of the most important skills in critical thinking is the ability to distinguish between what is actually implied by a statement or situation and what may carelessly be inferred to be true

What is a final conclusion?

A conclusion that does not serve as a reason for any other conclusion

What is a intermediate conclusion?

A conclusion that is also a reason for another conclusion.

What is affirming the antecedent mean?

A deductively valid argument form that the antecedent of a conditional premise is "affirmed" by a second premise. If A then B A. Therefore B

Appeal to ignorance

A fallacious argument that uses the absence of proof As evidence for a conclusion

What is affirming the consequent mean?

A fallacious form of reasoning. The consequent is " affirmed" by the second premise therefore the argument is flawed. Its form is If P then Q Q Therefore P

Formal reasoning

A fallacy that occurs because of a structural error that results in an incorrect form of reasoning

Appeal to the masses

A fallacy that tries to persuade by appealing to popular opinion

Fallacies of ambiguity

A general label for a group of arguments that used flawed reasoning caused by ambiguous terms that result in shifts of meaning within argument

What is a premise

A statement (proposition) offered as support fora particular conclusion

Truth

A statement proven to be accepted as true and corresponds to fact or logic

Appeal to authority

A type of argument that is intended to persuade through an appeal to authority. Usually fallacious

Conclusion indicator

A word or a phrase in an argument that precedes a conclusion

What is a conclusion indicator

A word or phrase in an arguement that precedes a conclusion

Premise indicator

A word or phrase that precedes or introduces a premise

What is a premise indicator

A word or phrase that precedes or introduces a premise

Infer or inference

A word or phrase that shows that the next statement is either a premise or conclusion. Conclusions are introduced. By words such as " therefore" and "consequently". Premises are indicated by words like: "since" "because" and " in view of"

Hasty generalisation

Accepting a generalisation on the basis of a sampling that is too small or was selected in some sort of biased way

Dilemma

An argument form offering a choice between alternatives Either A or B If A then C If B Then E Therefore either C or E

False analogy

An argument from analogy is one that infers that if two individual things share relevant properties, then a further property of one of them will also probably be shared by the order. An argument is a false analogy when the similarities between the two things are not relevant to the argument

Appeal to pity

An argument in which the reasons offered to support the conclusions are designed to invoke sympathy

Invalid

An argument is invalid if the assumed truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

Validity

An argument is valid (deductive) If and only if - There are no possible circumstances under which all premises would be true, and the conclusion would be false

Division (fallacy of)

An argument requiring that what applies to the whole will apply to each (or even most) of the parts

Begging the question

An argument that assumes in the premises that what is at issue is true, thus the conclusion inferred rests on questionable premises. Also known as circular reasoning

Bifurcation

An argument where only two alternatives are presented. When in reality there may be others.

What does fallacious mean?

An error in reasoning; a flaw or defect in argument, an argument that doesn't conform to rules of good reasoning. Such unsound arguments are often persuasive because they appeal to emotions and predjudices.

Counterexample

An example that is in opposition to a generalisation. Falsifying the argument

What is a indicator for convergent reasoning?

Anyway...it acts a a structure indicator which gives us a clue that another independent premise is about to be given Others include... On the other hand Besides Not only that

Explain degrees of support

Arguments can be classified according to the degree that the premises, if true, support the conclusion

Fallacy of presumption

Arguments that contain an unstated assumption that is flawed

How do you test for validity?

Assuming the premises are true it is i possible for the conclusion to be false. If it is then the argument is invalid

What are the basic components of a argument?

Basic reason 1 ⬇️ Reason 2 Intermediate concl ⬇️ 3 Final conclusion

How do you mark inference words using logical structure?

By using arrows

True or false A deductive argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion

False

True or false A sound argument can have false premises and a true conclusion

False

Fallacies of relevance

Faulty arguments that appeal to factors that have little or nothing to do with the argument being offered for support

What is the purpose of critical thinking

Helps us determine if an argument is persuasive or convincing and assists us in finding the truth

Why use clarification

If the passage is unclear, we need to rewrite and clarify the statements

What does a conditional statement mean, in terms of a arguement?

If the premises are true then the conclusion is also true If it rains then i don't play soccer If i don't play soccer then i dance Therefore If it rains then i dance

What are deductively valid arguements?

If the premises provide conclusive support then the conclusion would also have be true, that is if the premises are true

What symbols are used to mark the following? Inference words, conclusions and premises, conclusions, restate or clarify unclear passages

Inference words: <> Conclusions and premises: // Conclusions: underline Restate and clarify: [ ]

Principle of charity

Interpretation of an argument that represents the authors intention. As convincingly as possible, thus yielding the maximum amount of rational persuasion. This avoids the mistake of defeating the "straw man"

Denying the antecent

Invalid argument If A then B Not A Therefore not B

An argument is said to be deductively valid if and only if what?

It is impossible that its conclusion is false while its premises are true.

What makes a good arguement?

It must be rationally convincing, and give you reason to accept the conclusion

Determining premises are true is a matter of ______.

Logic Common sense Knowledge Determined through obsevation

Denying the consequent

Modus tollens: a deductively valid argument If A then B Not B Therefore not A

Is "because" always an inference word?

No it is used to split up compound sentences and may not always be useful

Should a conditional statement be split up?

No they are indicated by words such as ....if and then... If you clean your room then we can eat icecream

Slippery slope fallacy

Objecting to something on the unwarranted assumption that it will lead to bad consequences that will in tern lead to further bad consequences, and so on.

Clobber words include....

Of course Reason says Obviously Naturally enough We all agree that Commonsense says

What is divergent reasoning?

One premise is given to support two conclusions

What are the three basic components of a argument

Premise Inference indicator Conclusion

Rewrite this... Why don't you go to Fiji for your holiday this year? There are some great packages available at the moment.

Premise: There are some great [travel] packages [to Fiji] at the moment. Conclusion: You ought to go to Fiji for your holiday this year.

Explain inductive arguements?

Premises giving partial support, that is if the premises were true then there is a high degree of probability that the conclusion would also be true

Tu quoque

Similar to hominem, but here it is claimed that the argument is poor because the arguer doesn't follow their own advice

Premises are preceded by words like...

Since As shown by Because Follows from In the first place Assuming that For reasons that Being that Firstly Secondly As indicated by As May be derived from As indicated by

True premise + valid aruement=

Sound arguement

Premises and conclusions must be ________.

Statements

What is an antecedent?

The "if " part of a conditional statement

What is the consequent?

The "then" part of a conditional statement

Validity applies to what?

The argument NOT the premises or the conclusion as they can only be true or false.

Probability

The degree to which a conclusion is likely to be true, based on the supporting premises

How would you define an arguement

The discourse that offers a reason or a set of reasons, or premises as we call them in support of a conclusion

Sweeping generalisation

The error of assuming that what is true under certain conditions is true under all conditions

Appeal to force

The fallacy of trying to get someone to accept a conclusion on the basis of a threat or by invoking force

Composition (fallacy of )

The false assumption that what is true of each individual member of a set is also true of the whole group or set.

Equivocation (fallacy of )

The use of a key term in an argument that changes meaning during the course of the argument

Conclusion follows words like...

Therefore Demonstrates that So. Implies Suggests that Then Proves that Entails Hence Consequently

What part is the intermediate conclusion? /dancers do a lot of dancing/ <that is why> /they have muscular legs/ <therefore> /they are excellent sprinters/

They have muscular legs

Statistical argument

This is when an inference is drawn about a target population based upon what is said to be true of a sample group

Straw man fallacy

This occurs when an opponents views are misrepresented in order to weaken their argument, thus making them easier to criticise

True or false A deductive argument can have a false conclusion

True

True or false A deductive argument can have false premises and conclusions

True

True or false. A deductive argument can have false premises

True

At least one false premise + invalid argument =

Unsound arguement

At least one false premise + valid argument =

Unsound arguement

True premise + invalid argument =

Unsound arguement

Unstated premises

When not all argument are fully expressed. Sometimes premises and even conclusions are left unexpressed. Unstated premises can be problematic, particularly if the two parties in a discussion are making differing assumptions

What is convergent reasoning?

When premises stand alone and do not need the support of the other

What is linked reasoning?

When two or more premises link together

Validity of an argument depends on what?

Whether the premises are actually true. We do not need to find out whether they are true or false, to determine an arguments validity.

What is a clobber word?

Words that bully us into accepting conclusions and premises when reasoning is weak or flawed