Logic Test Two

Quality and Quantity are attributes of categorical propositons

- A quality is either affirmative or negative depneding upon whether it affirms or denies class membership. Ex. All S are P is afriamtive; No S are P is negative. - Quantity: is either universal or particular, depending on whether or not the statement makes a claim about every member or just some members of the class denoted by the term. - Bottom line: quantity is determined by the quantifier, and quality is determined by the coupla.

A E I O

- A: universal affirmative. "A proposition". All S are P - E:Universal Negative proposition. No S are P - I: particular affiramtive propositon. Some S are P - O: particular negative Some S are not P

Conversion, obversion, and contraposition are operations that can be performed on a catergorical proposition, resulting in a new statement that may or may not have the same truth value as the original. Venn diagrams can be used to show how they relate.

- Conversion: consist of switching subject and predicate. Ex. "No foxes are lizards" to its converse of "No lizards are foxes." With converse, E and I statements are logically equivalent to their converse(aka they have the same truth value). If yo With A and O statements, conversion produces a new statement that is not logically equivalent to the orginal, so we say its logically undetermined. - Obversion: requires two steps; 1. Changing quality without changing quantity 2. Turning the predicate into its term complement(complement of a class if the group consisting of everything outside of it; so a term compliment is the word or group of words that denotes the class compliment...for terms with single word sually accomplished by attatching a "non." With obverse, each of the four types of catergorical proposition is logically equivalnet to its obverse. - Contraposition: Requires two steps; 1. Switch subject and predicate 2. Replacing subject and predicate term with their term compliments. With contrapositon, A and O are logically equibalent to their contrapositive.

Fallacy of relevance: appeal to the people. (Direct [appeal to fear] and Indirect[appeal to snobbery, bandwagon, appearl to vannity, appeal to tradition])

- Direct approach: when the arguer, addressing a large gorup of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crows to win acceptance for his or her conclusion. Ex. Hitler speeches. 1. Appeal to fear: variety of direct appeal to the people that is occurs when the speaker trumps up fear of something in the mind of the crowd and then uses that fear as a premise of the conclusion. Occurs when the fear is not supported by rational evidence. 1A) Direct appeal to the people can also occur in writing (Ex. Propaganda speeches) - Indirect appraoch: When the arguer aims not at the crowd as a whole but at one of more individuals seperately, focusing on some aspect of those individual's relationship to the crowd. 1. Badnwagon: Everyone believes it, so should you! 2. Appeal to vanity: often involves linking the love, admiration, or approval of the crowd with some famous figure who is loved, admired, or approved of. Ex. "Wear this watch because Daniel Craig wears it." 3. Appeal to snobbery: crowd that arguer is talking to is a smaller gorup that is suppose to be superior in some way. "If you want to be part of this group, then you should..." 4. Appeal to tradition: When the arguer cites the fact that something has become a traditon as some grounds for a conclusion.

We can internet A and E categorical propositions in two different ways and according to one, an argument might be valid, while according to another it might be invalid. These two possible interpretations deal with exsistential import.

- Ex. "All of Walt Disney's movies are hits;" "All Hutts have a tail." - The first catergorical prop. implies that Walt Diseny has indeed made some movies, so therefore it does have exsistential import (implies that one or more things denoted by the subject term actually exsist. In contrast, no such impliction is made about Hutt; it does not imply that Hutts actually exsist. - This raises the question of "should universal catergorical propositons be interpreted as implying that the things talked about actually exsist or not? Two different approaches taken. 1. Aristotelian Approach: "All pheasents are birds"implies the exsistence of pheasents because their subject term denotes actually exsisting things. "All Jawas are sleezy little men" does not imply the exsistence of Jawas because Jawas do not actually exsist. 2. Boolean Approach: No universal propositions have exsistential import; aka such propostions never imply the exsistence of the subject. - For I and O statemetns, both the Atristotilean and Boolean approaches reconizes the subject's exsistance.

From the Boolean approach, the four kinds of categorical propostions have the follwoing meanings: - A: "All S are P" = No members of S are outside of P - E: "No S are P"= No members of S are inside of P - I:"Some S are P"= At least one S exsist that is a P - O: "Some S are not P"= At least one S exsist that is not inside P Logician John Venn developed a system of diagrams to represent the information they express...Venn Diagrams

- Venn diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles where each circle represents the class denoted by a term in a caterogrical propostion. It has two overlapping circles because each caergorical propositoin has two terms (subject and predicate). Left is the class denoted by the subject term and right for predicate. Thus, the S class, if any such members exsist, are situated in the left circle and the P class, if any such memebers exsist, are in the right. If any such memebrs exsisting in the overlapping area, then they belong to the S and P class. If any meber is situated outside of the cirlces, they are a member of neither class. - Ex. If subject class if Americans and predicate class is farmers, then we use numerals to idnetify the four possible areas where they might exsist. If you shade an area, then its empty. Placing an X in an area means at least one thing exsist in that area. If no mark appears in an area, then nothing is known about that area. - For A: the S circle will be shaded; For N: the overlp is shaded;For I: the overlap has an X; For O: the S circle has an X.

3.4 Identify fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and illicit transfer 1. In Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson argues that slavery was the biggest reason for the war. However, as a Yankee, he cannot possibly give an accurate account. Therefore, his book can't be trusted 4. A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better than true love. Therefore, a crust of bread is better than true love. 7. Surely is morally permissible to hunt for food. If God didn't want us to eat them, he wouldn't havemade them out of meat. 10. Giant pandaas are rapdily disapearing. This animal is a giant panda. Therefore, we should expect it to evaporate at any second 13. Childhood obseity is a major problem. Obviously, our school health classes haven't been doing their job 16. Rex Tillerson says the natural-gas fracking is perfectly safe and poses no threat to the Dakota's drinking water. Therefore, there is nothing to worry about. 22. If I rent some land and plant crops on it, the landlord is never permitted to come and take those crops for himself when harvest time comes. Similarly, if couples enlist the services of a surragate mother to provide them with a baby, the mother should be allowed to back -out on the deal and keep it when its born

1. Ad Hominem (circumstantial) 4. Equivocation 7. Begging question 10. Divison 13. False cause (oversimplified cause) 16. False authority (biased/untrustworthy) 22. False Analogy

Perform the operations of conversion, obversion, and contrapositoin as indicated. Tell whether LE 1. Converse: A. All hurricanes are storms intensisfed by global warming 2. Obvert: All radically egalitarian socieites are socities that do not perserve individual liberties 3. Contrapose: All doctors who liscenses have been revoked are doctors inelidgible to practice.

1. All storms intensifed by global warming all hurricanes. (not Logically equiv) 2. No radically egalitarian socites are socites that perserve individual liberties. (logically equivalnet) 3. All doctors elidgible to practice are doctors who liscenses haven't been revoked. (LE)

3.2 Exercises: Identify the fallacies of relevance 1. The position in the accounting department should be given to Frank Thompson. He has six children to feed, and his wife desperately needs an operation to save her eyesight. 4. Whoever thrusts a knife into another peson should be arrested. But surgeons do precisely this when operating. Therefore, they should be arrested. 7. Surely you welcome the opportunity to join our protective organization. Think of all the money you would lost in broken windows, overturned trucks, and detroyed merchndised if you dont join. 10. Giving ridiculous reasons, the editors of Tomorrowland Today have accused our company of being one of the worst rocket fuel polluters in the city. But Tomorrland Today has dumped more rocket fuel than us. 13. We've all heard the argument that too much TV is the reason that our students cannot read and write. Yet, many of today's TV shows are excellent. Madam Secretaey offers a look at the life of the secretary of state. The Big Bang Theory serves up good laughs. The Voice displays genuine talent. Today's shows are great. 16. Bernie Sanders says that big banks have been ripping off the American consumer for years. Its clear that he is saying this only to bring attention to his campaign. Therefore, you shouldn't take him seriosuly

1. Appeal to pity 4. Accident 7. Appeal to force 10. Ad Hominem (Tu Qoque) 13. Ad Herring 16. Ad Hominem (circumstantial)

Identify the letter name of the categorical proposition, quantity, quality, and whether subject and predicate are distirbuted 1. No vampire movies are films without blood. 4. Some Chinese leaders are not thoroughgoing opponets of capatalist economies Change the quality but the quantity of the following catergorical prepositions: 1. All drunk dirvers are a threat to others on the highway 4. Some CIA operatives are not champions of human rights 7. Some stay-at-home moms are workers who deserve social security. Change the quality and quanitity of the caterogical propositons 1. All oil spills are events catosrophic to the enviroment 4.Some corproate lawyers are not people with a social conscience 7. Some economic forums are venues for airing financial fears

1. Category E, universal, negative; subject and predicate are distributed. 4. Catergory O. Particular; negative; subject isnot distirbuted; predicate is 1. No drunk drivers are a threat to others on the highway 4. Some CIA operatives are champions of human rights 7. Some moms are not workers who deserve SS 1. Some oil are not events tragic to the enviroment 4. All corproate lawyers are people with a social conscience

Two ways of making an argument bad

1. Commits a fallacy: a mistake in reasoning or a bad inference from the premises to the conclusion. What makes an argument invalid or weak (and consquently sound or unsound) 2. Having one or more false premises 3. Both Bad is synonmus with unsound or uncogent (for deductive or inductive arguments respectively)

3.1 Exercises: Are these formal or informal fallacies 1. If Rasputin was really mad, then he decieved Tsar Nicholas 2nd. Rasputin was not really mad. Therefore, he did not decieve the Tsar. 4. The ship of state is like a ship at sea. No sailor is ever allowed to protest orders from the captin. For the same reason, no citizen should ever be allowed to protest presidental polices. 7. The three celeberies are Democrats. Therefore, all of Hollywood must be democrat. 10. Some corporate mergers are arrangements that produce layoffs. Some arrangements that produce layoffs are catastrophes. Therefore, some corporate mergers are catastrophes.

1. Formal 4. Informal 7. Informal. 10. Formal

Two main types of fallacies: Formal and Informal

1. Formal: when a deductive argument has an invalid form. Can be detected by examining the form alone. 2. Informal: Detected based on the content of the argument. This is because they rely upon some mistaken presumption about the meaning, relevance, or implications of the specific content of the argument. Consquently, you need some knowledge of the key content words of the argument.

Identify the fallacies of relevance and weak induction 1. I bumped into my friend Collin the other day, and the first thing his German shepard did was rush up to me and sniff that spot about 10 inches beneath my navel. When I visited Cassidy at her home yesterday, her poodle made a beeline for..the same spot. Dogs are all alike. The only thing they do is annoy you by sniffing 4. TC Harrelson, the best selling author, argues in his book that the Beast of Bladenboro was real. But its clear that he's doing this to sell a lot of books. Therefore, don't listen to him 7. Pam has bought over 100 tickets on the weekly state lottery and has never won anything. Therefore, the likihood that she wins will increase. 10. Meredith Williams has argued that logic is not the most important thing in life. Apparently she advocates irrationality. Its taken thousands of years for humans to get where we are, and she wants to regress! 13. Envirometnalist accuse us of blocking the plan to convert Antartica into a world park. In fact, nothing is further from the truth. Its a huge continent teeming with life. It is the home of millions of penguins, seals, sea birds, and sea lions. Also schools of whales inhabit the waters

1. Hasty Generalization 4. Ad hominem (Circumstantial) 7. False Cause (gambler's fallacy) 10. Strawman 13. Redherring

3.3 Exercises: Identify the fallacies of weak induction committed. If none, then none. 1. WECT carried an article this morning about 3 local teens who were arrested on charges of drug possesion. Teens these days are a bunch of losers 4. The secretaries have asked us to provide lounge areas where they can spend their coffee breaks. This request will have to be refused. If we give them lounge areas, next they'll want spas and swimming poools, then... 7. Nobody has ever been able to prove the exsistence of ESP. Therefore, we can conlsude its a myth. 10. There is substantial evidence that units of the Chinese military hack into the computers of American tech companies to steal intellectual property and trade secrets. But Preisdnet Chi Jong Ping denies that this is happening. Therefore, we can conclude that it isnt hapening. 13. Nobody should buy clothing from Weaver's department store without first trying it on. Accordingly, nobody should buy anyhting from a grocery store without first tasting it.

1. Hasty generalization: small, unrepresentative sample size. 4. Slippery Slope 7. Appeal to ignroance. Nothing meitoned that could potentially save it like "expert scientest have tried and failed to prove..." 10. Appeal to false authority. He is obvisouly biased 13. Flase analogy.

3 main reasons why people commit fallacies

1. Intent: They know their reasoning is defective, but they use it anyways to benefit themselves or some other person. Intellectual dishonesty 2. Careless mental psoture combined with a bias towards some person or thing: 3. The worldview of the arguer: beliefs, attitudes, values, memories, etc that conditiions and renders meaningful the world in which we live. In the construction and evaluation of arguments, it determines the answer to questions of importance, relevance, casual connections, qualifications of authorites, etc. This can lead to fallacious thinking; ex. a racist person might take a hasty generlization about a handful of Africans for granted. To counter this, admit you have certain biases and contruct your arguments in such ways to avoid it.

Use conversion, obversion, and contraposition to determine whehter the following arguments are valid or invlid. For those invalid, name the fallacy comitted 1. All commodity traders are gamblers who risk sudden disaster. Therefore, all gamblers who risk certain disaster all commodity traders. 4. Some insane people are illogical people. Therefore, some logical people are sane people. 7. All periods when interest rates are high are times when businesses tend not to expand. Therefore, all times when businesses tend not to expand are periods when interest rates are low. 10. All ladies of the night are individuals with low self-esteem. Therefore, no laides of the night are individuals with high self esteem. 13. Some insurnace companines are not humanitiran oranizations. Therefore, some humanitarian organizations are not insruance companines. 19. All unpleasent experiences are things we do not like to remeber. Therefore, all things we like to remeber are please experinces.

1. Invalid (Illicit conversion) 4. Invalid (illicit composotion) 7. Valid (via contrapositive) 10. Valid (via obverse) 13. Invalid (illicit conversion) 19. Valid (via constrapositive)

Use the Modern Square of Opposition to determine whether the following immediate inferences are valid or invalid form the boolin standpoint. 1. No sculptures of Daivd are boring creations. Therefore, all sculptures of Rodin are boring creations. 4. All whitelighting moonshine drinks that burn your throat. Therefore, it is false that some martinis are not things that not drinks that burn your throat. 7. No fertility drugs are solutions to every problem. Therefore, it is false that all fertility drugs are solutions to every problem. 10. No vampires are avid fans of garlic bread. Therefore, it is false that some vampires ar avid fans of garlic bread. 13. It is false that soap bubbles are not occasions of glee. Therefore, some soap bubbles are occasions of glee.

1. Invalid. Going from E to A. 2. Valid. Going form A to O 7. Invalid. E to A 10. Valid 13. Invalid. O to I

Fallacy of Illicit composition

1. No S are P; therefore, no non-P are non-S 2. Some S are P; therfore, some non-P are non-S

The following are a statement and its truth value; perform the following action and give its truth value 1. No A are non-B (T).....Conversion 4. All non-A are B (F).....constrapositonve 7. No non-A are non-B(F)...No B are A 10. No non-A are B (F)...All non-A are non-B

1. No non-B are A (True) 4. All non-B are A (False) 7. Constrapostive; (logically undetermined) 10. Obverse; (False)

Venn Diagrams can be used to check the validity of immediate inferneces.

1. Represent the information in the premise and in the conclusion in seperate venn diagrams. 2. Check whether the information contained in the conclusion diagram is contained in the premise diagram. If it is found in the prmeise diagram, then its valid from a boolin perspective. It not, its invalid.

Identify the following categorical propositions, identify the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term. 1. Some executive-pay packages are insults to ordinary workers 4. Some preachers who are intolerant of other's beleifs are not televison evangelist 7. No sex-education courses that are taguht completely are programs that are currently eroding public morals

1. Some S are P; some; executive pay packages; are; insults to ordianry workers 4. Some S are P; some; preachers who are intolerant of other's beleifs; are; not televison evanglist 7. No S are P; No; Sex ed courses that are taught completey; are; programs that are currently roding public morals

4 Types of Categorical Propositions:

1. Those that assert that the whole subject class is included in the predicate class 2. those that assert that part of the subject class is included in the predicate class 3. those that assrt that part of the subject class is NOT included in the predicate class 4. those that assert that none of the subject class are included in the predicate class. - Standard-form catergorcal proposition: A catergorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete clairity. It is this if and only if its a substituiton instance of the following form forms: All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P, Some S are not P. Many are NOT in standard form because they do not begin with the words all, no, or some. - Quantifiers: the words "all, no, some" because thet speciffy how much of the subject class is excluded or incldued in the predicate class. - Copula: "are" "not" because they link subject and rpedicate term

Each argument is defective, but is it based on one or more false prmeises, a fallacious reasoning process, or both? 1. Either Mumbai is the capital of New York or California. Its not the capital of California. Therefore, its teh capital of New York. 2. If Neil Armstrong was an astronaut, then he was human. He was not an astronaut. Therefore, he is not a human

1. Valid reasoning (no fallacy). False premise. 2. Invalid reasoing (fallacy). False premise

Identify the fallacies of relevance and weak induction (continued) 16. Student loan debt is becoming a naitonal crisis. Clearkly, we should provide free textbooks to all college students. 22. Memebers of the jury, you have heard Jack Napier testify that the defendent is not in fact a drug dealer. But Napier is a dealer himself and a close friend of the defendent. Also, he was concivted of perjury five years ago. Therefore, disocunt his testimoney 25. Nobody has ever proved that immoral behavior by elected officals erodes public morality. Therefore, we can conclude that it does not. 28. On Friday I had liquor and coke and woke up with a headache. On Saturday, I had a case of beer and coke and woke up with a headache. On Tuesday, I had Jack and a coke and woke up with a headache. Obviosuly, I should stop drinking coke.

16. Missing the point 22. No fallacy 25. Argument from ignorance 28. False cause (oversimplified)

3.2 Exercises (Continued) 19. Andrew Wilcow, radio host, says the government should give businesses a break. Obviously, we wants to abolish government all together. This is bad because we need a government for protection. We can see that his argument is absurd. 22. Of course you want to buy a pair of Jordans. All the best NBA players wear them. 25. Granny has been suffering from ameneisa and has no recollection of the past two weeks. We can only conclude that she did not commit the crime of murdering Papa last week, as she has been accused of doing.

19. Straw man 22. Appeal people indirect (to vannity) 25. Missing the point

3.4 Identify fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and illicit transfer (Continued) 25. Humanitarian groups have argued in favor of housing for the homeless. Unfortunately, these high-density projects have been tried in the past and failed. In no time they turn into ghettos with astronomical rates of crime and delinquency. Clearly, these humanitarian arguments are not what they seem. 31. We hear complaints about Americans not having healthcare. But we have the best doctors and nurses in the world. Thousands come here to be treated. Clearly, nothing is wrong with our system. 34. The travel brochure states that walking up O Connel street, the statue of Robert E Lee comes into view. Apparently, that statute has no trouble getting around 40. The Koran is true because it was written by Muhammad. Muhammad wrote the truth because he was divinely inspired. We know he was inspired because the Koran says he was, and the Koran is true. 43. The vast majority of car accients occur within 20 miles of one's home. Apparently, it is much more dangerous to dry close to home than far from home 49. A line is composed on points. Points have no length. Therefore, a line has no length.

25. Straw man 31. Red Herring 34. Amphiboly 40. Begging quetion 43. Missing the point 49. Composition

3.4: Identify the fallacy of presumption, ambiguity, or illicit transfer 4. Collin said that he saw a picture of a naked girl on Tripp's locker. We can only conlcude that Tripp broke the rules, because girls are not allowed in the locker room. 7. People who lack humility have no sense of beauty, because everyone who has a sense of beauty also has humility. 10. If Howard gave Bernadette a ring, then they will be engaged. Howard did give her a ring. In fact, he phoned her just the other day. Therefore, they are engaged. 13. All men are mortal. Therefore, someday man will disapear from the Earth. 16. During the 30 years that Billy Boomer worked,he contributed 90,000 to SS. Now that he is retired, he stands to collect 200,000 from the system. Obviously, he will collect a much greater monetary value than he contributed. 22. Debra, I saw wine in your cabinet yesterday. Do you still have a drinking problem? 25. Of course abortion is permissible. Afterall, a women has a right to do what she pleases with her own body.

4. Amphiboly 7. Begging Question (restating shaky premise as conclusion) 10. Equivocation 13. Composition 16. Supressed evidence (inflation?) 22. Complex Question 25. Begging quesiton (leaving premise out)

3.3 Exercises: Identify fallacies of weak induction. If none, then write no argument

4. Unqualified authority

What is a fallacy?

A defect in an argument that arises from either a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good; aka. It represents a mistake in reasoning or a bad inference from one or more of the premises to the conclusion. - Deductive and inductive argument types have fallacies. And if it does contain a fallacy, it is either unsound or uncogent. - Formal Fallacy: One that may be identified by merely examining the form of structure of an argument. Found only in deductive arguments that have identifable forms. - Informal Fallacy: Fallacies detected by examing the content of the argument. Ex. Brooklyn bridge is made of atoms. Atoms are invisible. Therefore, the brooklyn bridge is invisible. To know this a fallacy, one must know something about bridges. OR "A chess player is a person. Therefore a chess player is a bad person." To detects this, one must know that there are two different meanings of bad.

Existential Fallacy

A fallacy that is invalid because the premise is interpreted as not having exsistneital import. Two forms are important from a Boolin standpoint. 1. All S are P. therefore, some S are P 2. No S are P. Therefore, some S are not P - Neither argument has an assumption of exsistneital import. But if you were to assume that the premise in the argument had exsistneital import, then it would be valid. Ex. Without assumption of exsistenital import, "All S are P" does not imply that something exsist called S. - Ex.

Categorical Proposition

A proposition/statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. - Catergorical proposition: a proposition that relates two classes or catergories. The classes being discussed are denoted by the subject and predicate time, and the proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the subject term included in or excldued from the class denoted by the predicate term. - Ex. Relatity TV stars hope for reconiton. OR Junk foods do not belong in school caferterias. or Not al romances ahve happy ending. Or Oprah Winfrey publishes magizens. - First statement says that the entire class of relatity stars are within the class of people hoping for reconition. Second says that the entire class of junk foods do not belong in school cafetieras. The third says that part of the class of romances is excluded from the class of things having happy endings.

Distribution: An attribute of the terms (subject and predicate) of propositions

A term is distributed if the proposition makes an assertion about every member of the class denoted; otherwise, its undistibruted. - A proposition: subject is distirbuted. Predicate is undistributed - E proposition: Subject is distributed, and so is predicate - I propositoin: Subject and predicate are undistributed - O proposition: subject is not distbruted, but predicate is

Fallacy of presumption: Complex Question

Committed when two or more questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given in support of them. Every complex question presumes the exsistence of a certain conditon. When the respondent's answer is added to the complex question, an argument emerges that establishes the presumed conditon. Contains an implicit argument that is usally intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that he or she might not otherwise want to acknowledge. - Ex. Have you stopped cheating on exams? OR Where did you hide the weed you were smoking? - If they said yes, two argumetns emerage: " You were asked if you stopped cehating on your exams. You said yes, therefore, you claimed that you cheated in the past. - Leading the question: When the answer is sugested in the question. Ex. "Tell us, on April 9th, did you see the defendent shoot the victim?" vs straight question of "Tell us, what did you see on April 9th.?" Leading quesitons are not logically fallacious because they do not attempt to trick the respondent into admitting something they dont want to admit.

Fallacy of Presumption: Supressed evidence

For an argument to be cogent, it has to have strong reasoning, true premises, and meet the total evidence requirement (true premises cannot ignore some important piece fo evidence that outweighs the exsisting evidence and would thus draw a very differnet conclsuon). If it does not meet the total evidence requirement, then its this fallacy. - Ex. "Most dogs are friendly and pose no threat ot people who pet them. Therefore, it would be safe to approach the little dog who is appaorching now." **The little dog has rabies** - Occurs in many adverisements and when politicans trash an oppoent's record to conclude they're a bad canidate without mentioning their accomplishments. - Can also occur if events have occured with the passage of time that render an inductive conclusion impossible: Ex. "US military has fewet battleships, MI rifles, and horse-drawn howitzers today than in 1940. Therefor, its less effiecve fighting today." Ignores the fact that over time weaponry has greatly improved. - Also occurs if someone quotes from the Bible or some other doucment to support soemthng it wasn't intended to support. - Begging the question leaves out a premise that doesnt support a given conclusion. This leaves out a prmeise that would make the argument support a different conclsuion.

modern square of opposition

For the Venn Diagrams, A and O contradict each other. E and I also contradict each other. This realtionship of mutally contradictory pairs of propositions is represented by the Modern Square of Opposition, which arises from the Boolean interpretation of catergorical propsoitions. - See page 221 for picture. - If one of a contradictory pair is given is true or false, you can draw a conclusion about the truth value of its oppponet but nothing else (ex. Cant make a conclusion about E or I when when A or O & vice versa; so these are said to have logically undetermined truth value). - If given a set of propositions about nonexsisting things, ex. Unicrons, then the A statement that says that there are no Unicorns outside predicate class will be true because there is no unicorns at all and the E proposition iwll be true for the same reason (these propositons are said to be vaxuously true because their truth value resutls solely from the subject class is empty of vaoid of members)

Fallacies in the real world.

In the real world, identifying fallacies likely won't be as clear-cut. There are many mistakes in arguing, and it may not be a clear-cut example of a given fallacy; alos, some fallacies may be mixed with others; a final complication is the fact that in ordinary language argumetns are rarely presented in complete form....a premise or conclusion is oftern left unexpressed.

3.4 Fallacies of Illicit Transfer

Include composition and division. Arises from the incorrect transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole, or from the whole onto the parts.

3.4 Fallacies of Ambiguity

Include equivocation and amphiboly. Arise from some form of ambiguity (sustpible to differnet interpretations in a given context) in the premises, conclusion, or both.

3.4: Fallacies of Presumption

Includes begging the question, complex question, false dichotomy, and supressed evidence. These fallacies arise from the fact that the premises presume what they set out to prove.

Fallacies of Weak Induction

Occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but because they are not strong enough to support the conclusion. Instead, they often involve some emotinal gorunds for believing the conclusion.

Fallacy of Relevance: Appeal to Pity

Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conlcusion by evoking pity from the listener. - An argument from compassion is not fallacious. In addtion to evoking compassion on behalf of some person, they supply information about why that person is geuninely deserving of help or special consideration. Examples of such arugments oftern involve saying that the person is not responsible for their circumstances, that the reccomended help is not illegal or inappropriate, and that the help will guinely help the person in question. The argument from pity supports its argument by merely evoking pity from the listner.

Fallacy of weak induction: Slippery Slope(part of false cause)

Occurs when conclusion rest on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficent reason to think that the chain reaction actually takes place. "Attempts to outlaw porn threaten basic civil rights and should be abadoned. If its outlawed, censorship of newspapers and news magizenes is only a short step away. After that there will be censoship of textbooks, political speeches, etc.

Fallacy of Weak Induction: False Cause

Occurs when the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined casual conncection that probably does not exsist. - Post Hoc: Something came first, therefore it caused the thing after it. Temporal sucession it not enough proof. - "Not the cause for this cause": When what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than temporal sucession. "Sucessful executives are paid salaries in excess of 100K. Therefore, the best way to ensure that Fergeuson. Therefore, the best way to make Bob Iger a sucessful executive is to pay him in excess of 100K. - Oversimplified cause: Occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer acts as if one of the causes is the sole cause. "The quality of education in our schools has been declining for years. Clearly, our teachers aren't doing their job these days." - Gambler's fallacy: When the conclusion of the argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are casually related. "Coin landed on heads five times in a rows, thereofre it will again on flip 6." Note: the events must be completely independent for it to be a gambler's fallacy (not poker, horse races, blackjack, etc)

Fallacy of weak induction: Weak analogy

Sense analogies depend upon a similarity between two things or situaitons, a weak analogy is when its not strong enough to support the conclusion drawn. - Ex of weak. the flow of electricity through a wire is similar to the flow of water through a pipe. When water runs downhill through a pipe, the pressure at the bottom of the hill is greater than it is at the top. Thus, when electricity flows downhill through a wire, the voltage should be greater at the bottom of the hill than the top." (weak because a casual relation exsist between difference in elevation and increase in pressure that holds for water but not electricity[because flowing electrons are not affected by gravity, unlike water] ) - Ex of strong: Flow of electrons in a wire in similar to water in a pipe. Obviosuly a large-diamter pipe will carry a greater flow of water than a pipe with a small diameter. Therefore, a large-diameter wire should carry a greater flow of electricity than a small diamater. (Good because a strong link between prmeises and conclsuion)

Fallacy of relevance

Share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet, they may appear to be relevant, so that the conclusion may seem to follow form the premises, even though it does not follow logically. In a good argument, the premises provide genuine evidence in support of the conclsuion. A fallacy of relevance the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional. Must be able to distinguish genuine evidence from emotional appeal.

Fallacy of Weak Induction: Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

Since a generalization is when a conclusion is drawn about a group based on a sample, this is when the sample is unrepresentative. May be because the sample is too small or not randomly selected. - Ex. The mass shooting in Colorado was carried out by a young white male. So where the shootings in Roseburg, Sanata Barbara, and Newtown. The evidence is clear, young white males are a threat to public safety. (sample is too small and atypical) - Just because a sample is small does NOT make it atypical, and just because a sample is alrge doesn't make it typical/representative of the group. If a large sample is not random, it probably isnt typical (Ex. One hundred thousand voters from Orange County were surveyed on their choice for govenor, and 68% since they were voting for Pete Wilson. Clearly they will win." Problem is, Orange County is overwhelmingly Republican)

Fallacy of illicit conversion

Since the converse of E and I statements is logically equivalent, you can make valid arguments like: No S are P; therefore, no P are S. OR Some S are P; therefore, some P are S. - You CANNOT say: 1. All A are B; therefore, all B are A 2. Some A are not B; therefore, some B are not A

Fallacy of Illicit Transfer: Divison

The reverse of composition. Erresonusly form the whole to the part. - Ex. Salt is a nonposinours compaound, therefore sodium and chlorine in themselves are nonpoisonous. - Is sometimes legitimate: "The teacup has mass; therefore, the atoms in the teacup have mass." OR "The field of poppies is uniformly orange; therefore, the individual poppies are orange."

Since the modern square of opposition provides logically necessary results, we can use it to test certain arguments for validity.

We begin by assuming that the premise is true and then entering the truth value in the square. We then use the square to compute the truth value of the conclusion. If the square indicates that the conclusion is true, the argument is valid; if not, its invalid. - Ex. Some trade spies are not maters at bribery. Therefore, it is false that all trade spies are masters of bribery. - Explanation: The above arugment is an Immediate Inference (has only one premise and proceeds form that premise to the conclusion). Since the conclusion claims that the A propositon in the conclusion is false, we can conclude this argument valid. Arguments form the Boolean standpoint are said to be Unconditonally Valid because they are valid regardless of whether are not the terms within them exsist. - Ex. It is false that all Disney fireworks shows are common spectacles. Therefore, no Disney fireworks shows are common spectacles. - Explanation: Since you cant draw conclusion from an A to an E propositon, this has an undetermined truth value and is thus invalid.

Fallacy of Presumption: False Dichotomy

When a disjunctive (either/or) precise presents two unlikely altenratives as if they were the only ones avaliable and the arguer then eliminates the undersiable one, leaving the deseriable one as the conclusion. Such an argument is valid, but since the disjucitve premise is likely false, its unsound. "Either you let me go to Woodstock, or I'll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you dont want me to be miserable, so you should let me go." - Expeciton: If one of the alternative premises is true beyond a doubt, its not a fallacy. Ex. Either Seattle is in Washington or Oregon. Seattle is not in ORegon. Therefore, its in Washington.

Fallacy of Relevance: Accident

When a general rule is cited to a specific case that it was not meant to cover. Typically the rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied. - Ex. The Consitution garuntees Free speech. Therefore, I should not be arrested for telling the old woman that I'd slit her throat.

Fallacy of Relevance: Argument Against the Person (absuvie, circumstnational, Tu Quoque)

When a response to an argument is against the person themself instead of their argument. - Ad Hominem Abusive: The response involves verbally abusing the first person. Trump wants to bring home our troops from Syria, but he is a facist. Therefore, don't listen to him. - Ad Hominem Circumsantial: Responds to person's argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponet in order to discredit their argument. "Ben Shapiro says the US should be involved in the Syrian conflict. But he is a zionist who wants Israel secure. Therefore, dont listen to him." - Tu Quoque: In their response, they appear to make the first arguer appear hypocritical or arguing in bad faith). - Exception: If the premises are relevant to the conclusion, its not a fallacy. Ex. If your conclusion is that Kim Jonh Un is a bad person and you then attack him in your premises. OR If you call Shakespeare an illiterate countyman in your premise and your conclusion is that he did not write certain plays.

Fallacy of relevance: Appeal to Force

When an arguer presents a conclusion to another person and tells us that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him if he or she does not accept it. - Ex. Tripp is the best barber in town, and if you don't agree, I'll beat your ass. - Threats can be physical or phycological.

Fallacy of presumption: Begging the question

When the arguer creates the illusion that inadequte premises provide support for the conclsuion by leaving out a posisbly false premise, by restating the possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by arguing in a circle. The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, so the arguer is said to beg the question. - Form 1: Commonly accompished by leaving out a possibly false key premise while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to prove the conclsuion. Ex. Murder is wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong. OR We know that humans are intended to eat lots of fruits, because the human hand and arm are perfectly suited for picking fruit on a tree. The first question begs the question "How do you know that abortion is a form of murder?" and "How do you know that the structure of the arm and hand tells humans what they should eat?" Its missing the premise "Abortion is a form of murder" and The stureute of the hand tells us what human should eat." - FOrm 2: When the argument restates a shaky preimse as the conclsuon. "Anyone who preaches revolution has a vision of the future for the simple reason that if a person has no vison of the future he could not possibly preach revolution." - Form 3: Circulr reasoning in a skay chain of inferneces having a first premise that is possibly false and the chain ending up back at the questionable first premise . Verizon has the best internet. Afterall, their phones have the clearest sound. And we know this because customers hear better on Verizon phones. And this follows from the fact that Verizon has digital technology. But this is exactly what you would expect given that Verizon has the best wireless service.

Fallacy of Relevance: Strawman

When the arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of making their attack easier. Often inovles exaggerating an opponet's argument or making it appear more extreme. - Ex. Trump wants to build a border wall. Obiously he is advocating for nativism. Nativism has lead to violence against ethnic minorites."

Red Herring

When the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. They then finish by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that a conclusion has been established. By doing do, the arguer proports to have won the argument. - Ex. Converavitves are continually harping about the dangers of illegal imigrants. Unfortunatly, crime is dangeorus no matter where it comes from. Every year white American males kill innocent people. Since most of these deaths are caused by violent video games, we should look at banning them. In the situation, the orginal issue is abotu whther mass immigration is dangerous. The danger then changes the subject to deaths by White AMerican males and then draws a conclusion about it. - Another way to use the red herring effectively is to change the subject to some flashy, eye-catching topic that is vitually garunteed to distract the readers attention. Usally a topic of sex, crime, scandal, death ,etc. - Ex. Linday Graham complains of decreased military funding. But, did you know that Lindsay Graham is rumored to be gay? It was leaked by a reporter back in the 90's. Okay, next topic." - Strawman vs Red Herring: Strawman distorrts opponet's argument and knocks this argument down. In red herring, they ignore opponet's argument and change subject.

Fallacy of ambiguity: Amphiboly

When the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretatin. Orignal statement is usally asserted by someone other than the arguer and then the ambiguity usally arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation. - Ex. "The tour guie said that standing in Greenwhich Village, the Empre state building could easily be seen. It follows that the ESB is in Greenwhich Village." - Unlike Equvocation which depends upon an amiguous word or phrase, amphilboly involves a syntatical amiguity. Also, in equivocation the amiguity is in the arguer's own statement, while the ambiguity is created by someone else that the author is interpreting in an amphilboly.

Fallacy of weak induction: Appeal to Unqualified Authority

When the citied authority or witness lacks credibility. - Likely because not be an expert, might be biased, might have a motive to lie, or might have a faulty memory. - Two points to keep in mind when deciding whether or not they are an appropriate authoirty: 1. Person might have authoity in more than one feild. 2. Some areas are where nobody can be an authority: politics, morals, and religion.

Fallacy of Illicit Transfer: Composition

When the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something unto thw whole. - Ex. Maria like sasuage. She also like ice cream. Therefore, she would like a dish with the two mixed together. OR Each player on the team is excellent, therefore the team is excellent. - Not ever transfer is illegiamte: Every board in the dog house is wooden. Thereofre, the dog house is wooden.

Fallacy of ambiguity: Equivocation

When the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses. - Ex. "Any law can be repealed by the legislature. The law of graviity is a law. Therefore, it can be repealed by them.

Fallacy of weak induction: appeal to ignorance

When the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing. Usally involves something that incapable of being proved or not yet been proved. - Ex. "People have been trying for centuires to provide conclusive evidence for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeded. Therefore, we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." - Exceptions: 1. If qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenonenon exsists, this is good enough evidence to make the argument inductively strong. 2. In a courtroom, if a prosecutor cannot prove that a person is guily, then it is justified that they can be presumed innocent.

Fallacy of Relevance: Missing the point

When the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion but then a different conclusion, often vauguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn. The arguer is ignorant of the logical implications of their own prmeises, and, as a result, misses the point entirely. - Ex. Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious: We must reinstate the death penealty immediately. OR Abuse of the welfare system is rempant. We must threfore we rid of the sytem. The logical real conclusions would be to comabt the rising crime through increased police measrues and system reforms for welfare.