Phil 101 Exam 1: Inductive Argument

Cogent Argument:

(1)strong (2)has all true premises

Ad Hominem:

-An argument against the person, as opposed to their actual argument (think: don't like the person) EX: Steve Forbes is very rich, thus we can discount his argument against raising income tax rates for the well-off.

Begging the Question:

-Saying the same thing in both the premises and conclusion EX: Sominex is an excellent sleep aid, for it has dormative power. (It's saying it will help you sleep well, b/c it will help you sleep well)

Argument from Dubious Authority:

-This is a fallacious argument from authority -Have to look at knowledge around world EX: If Hugh Laurie, the guy who plays House, thinks this new surgical procedure works, that's good enough for me.

What is the difference b/w a Deductive Argument and an Inductive Argument?

A deductive argument claims that the conclusion MUST be true IF all of the premises are true, while an inductive argument claims the conclusion is PROBABLY true if all of the premises are true

What is an inductively weak argument?

An inductive argument that does NOT make good on the claim

What is an inductively strong argument?

An inductive argument that makes good on the claim, even if one or more of the premises is FALSE

What is an Inductive Argument?

Claims the conclusion is PROBABLY true, IF all the premises are true

True or False: Inductive Arguments can only commit FORMAL logical fallacies?

False; Inductive arguments can only commit INFORMAL logical fallacies, not formal ones Think: ad hominem, begging the question, argument from dubious authority....so arguments dealing /w the content, NOT the form

True or False: There ARE NOT degrees of inductive strength/weakness?

False; there are degrees of inductive strength or weakness

Example of an inductively strong, incogent argument is:

Most boys like to play sports. Britney Spears is a boy. Therefore, Britney Spears probably likes to play sports. (b/c all the premises are not true even though it is strong)

Example of an inductively strong, cogent argument is:

Most recording artists have talent. Britney Spears is a recording artist. Therefore, Britney Spears probably has talent. (b/c it is strong with all true premises)

It is not unusual for e.g., a high school science text to say that deductive arguments go from general premises to a particular conclusion, inductive arguments from particular premises to a general conclusion. Is this true?

No, b/c does not conform to textbook model. (Look at notes for further examples)

What is the exception of when truth values of the statements of an inductive argument informs you of its strength/weakness?

When you have all true premises and a false conclusion -this means can't be strong (so incogent?)