PHIL 145

Rebutals

"Counter-counterconsiderations"

Persuasive Definition

- A definition, usually implicit, in which there is an attempt to give a new denotation to a word while preserving its previous emotional associations. - Often used with words such as "real" (insert word here). - Results in fallacy of equivocation.

Linked Support

- A kind of support where premises are interdependent in their support for a conclusion; when premises are linked, the removal of one would affect the bearing of the others upon the conclusion. - If taken together, the premises support the conclusion, taken individually they don't - Premises provide linked support if taken together they support the conclusion but taken individually they do not. The premises work together to support the conclusion, so to speak

Convergent Support

- A kind of support where premises work together in a cumulative way to support the conclusion, but are not linked. The bearings of one premise on the conclusion would be unaffected if the other premises were removed; however, the argument is strengthened when the premises are considered together, since more evidence is then offered. - Each premise individually supports the conclusion - When considering linked vs. convergent support, look around to see if you're relying on background common-sense knowledge (missing premises) that might give sense that a premise stands alone--risk of mistaking linked for convergent support - Weight of evidence - Premises provide convergent support if each premise individually provides support for the conclusion. In such a case, the arguer is presumably offering more than one premise because they think that there is some cumulative effect, which is to say that they think having more than one premise, each of which provides some support for the conclusion, means that you end up with more support for the conclusion than you would get by taking only one of the premises.

Missing, or unstated premise

- A premise not stated in just so many words but suggested by the context, wording, and natural logical order of a passage and needed to fill a gap in the reasoning. Note: missing premises should be supplied only when there is a clear interpretive justification for doing so. - Often occur when the arguer thinks something goes without saying - But can also be becaues of a bad argument - Use your judgement and charity principle. - But be careful--people often omit premises on purpose if they are illogical. They may also have just accidentally left a gap--it is more charitable to attribute them a gap than an impossible premise. - Part of the task of deciding whether or not to standardize an argument by adding a missing premise is deciding whether the arguer intends to express an argument of which that missing premise is a part, or whether they intend to present an argument which happens to have a logicla gap in it.

Argument

- A statement put forth and supported by evidence - An attempt to persuade somebody of something; reasons for accepting - A set of claims put forward as offering support for a further claim - An argument is composed of the supporting claims and the supported claim. - A person offers an argument when they try to justify a claim by offering reasons for it. - A set of declarative sentences, one of which is designated to be the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises. The premises are supposed to support the conclusion. This abstract definition is preferable because there are philosophical limitations with more precise definitions and it allows us to analyze arguments more generally. - People don't always use declarative sentences when expressing arguments. We translate this into declarative sentences with the meaning the author intended in order to find the argument. - There are many possible relationships between the sentences that make up an argument

Vagueness

- A word is used vaguely if, in the context in which it appears, we cannot determine what things the word would apply to. - Vagueness is a feature of a single meaning that can attach to a word. - Can raise problems if a premise involves a vague term applied to a bordeline case or to generalize in a way which includes bordeline cases. This makes it hard to determine whether a premise is acceptable.

Making the difference between an argument and an explanation

- In an explanation, there is some event or fact that is taken for granted, and the author tries to explain how it came to be be or why it is so. The event or fact to be explained is not called into question. When an argument is presented, the conclusion is usually regarded as contentious or open to doubt, or for some other reason as needing defense. - Explanations often cite causes, while arguments present reasons.

Conditional statement

- In such a statement, a connection is asserted between a condition and something said to be dependent on it. - An example would be "if it snows, we will shovel the sidewalk." Note that this statement does not assert that it is snowing but only that if it snows, shoveling will be done. - Such a statement, by itself, does not constitute an argument, although they are often used in arguments (often as premises).

Syntactic ambiguity

Ambiguity due to the grammar or syntax of a phrase, which can naturally be interpreted as expressing more than one distinct meaning.

Dialectical context

Context of controversy and discussion in which an argument for a conclusion about a disputed issue is formulated and put forward.

Identification of Premises and Conclusion

- Always start by determining whether someone is giving an argument - Different ways of presenting the same idea; don,t take everything literally; determine what the arguer is actually trying to say Identifying the conclusion - Question arises when you have already determined that someone is trying to convince you of the truth of some claim - Sometimes the conclusion may not even be stated - You need to consider what you know about the context in which the author was writing or speaking, because this can help you figure out what they intended to show - You need to try to figure out how definite the claim is that they arguer is trying to establish: do they contend that something is certainly true, or that it is likely, or perhaps only that it cannot be ruled out? - You need to figure out the scope of the conclusion: is the arguer trying to prove that something is true in all cases, most cases, or only a few cases, or merely that it applies in at least one case? - What is the person trying to convince me of? - Look for indicator words (but use your judgement) - Look for (1) definiteness and (2) scope Identifying the premises - Question of identifying the premises of an argument typically arises when you've already determined both that an argument is being expressed and what the main conclusion of the argument is. The question you are trying to answer when you try to identify the premises is: What claims is the arguer making which are supposed to support her contention that the conclusion is true? - What reasons is this person giving me to believe their conclusion - Careful with indicator words - Ask what is the person really saying - Because arguments may serve more than merely the intention to prove some conclusion, disentangle premises from other content that may be accomplishing other purposes (asides, rhetorical flourishes, etc.) - You can't expect all the premises to be expressed by using declarative sentences. However, the premises are claims, so for our purposes you should translate what is expressed into an equivalent declarative sentence. - Indicator words can help identify premises. However, even more than in the case of conclusions, you need to use caution. People are typically less careful to use indicator words for premises than they are for conclusions. - The "principle of charity" plays an important role in identifying premises. When deciding what claims are intended as premises, it is very useful to consider which claims could seriously be intended as offering support for the conclusion. This amounts to assuming that the arguer is smart enough to offer only arguments that deserve serious consideration, which is generally true.

Explanation

- An account showing, or attempting to show, how it came to be that a fact or an event is the way it is. Frequently, they are given by specifying the causes of an event. This is one kind of "nonargument."

Tools for representing/diagramming arguments

- An argument can have a combination of different forms of arguments (e.g. linked and convergent and burden of proof/rebutals and sub-arguments...) - Not all counter-considerations are in "burden of proof" format

Cogent Argument

- Argument in which the premises are rationally acceptable and also properly connected to the conclusion. They are properly connected if thay are relevant to the conclusion and, considered together, provide good grounds for it. - It is important to note that a failure of cogency does not mean that the conclusion is false or unacceptable; rather it means that this particular argument does not rationally support the conclusion - A cogent argument can allow for irrelevant premises in an otherwise cogent argument; a good argument which has some additional baggage--some unacceptable premises, but the acceptable ones are sufficient to have a good argument

Counterconsideration

- Claims which weigh against the conclusion being argued for. - Sometimes a person is in a position where the "burden of proof" rests with the view they are rejecting. In such a case they don't need to offer any positive reason to support their view. It is enough to show that the reasons put forward by their opponent are not sufficient to establish the opponent's case. E.g. in prosecution vs. defendant - Things that suggest the conclusion is false

Acceptability of premises (A condition)

- Condition in which the premises of an argument are reasonable to believe. - Asses each premise in turn, in isolation, - Determine whether it is reasonable to believe them

Diagramming counter-considerations and rebutals

- Counter-considerations are not going to be indicated by an arrow with a straight line but with a wavy-line arrow - Rebuttals will not have arrows drawn, but a straight line with a circle instead of an arrowhead.

Fallacy of equivocation

- Fallacy committed when a key word in an argument is used in two or more senses and the premises appear to support the conclusion only because the senses are not distinguished. The argument is likely to seem correct if the ambiguity is unnoticed. - Any argument which commits this fallacy fails to meet at least one of the ARG conditions, but just which one it fails depends on how one analyses the argument, and either of two analyses is usually reasonable, depending on how one answers the question "what is a word" (e.g. is bug one word with three different definitions or are there three different words all identified by the sound "bug") - To say what is going wrong in a case of fallacy of equivocation, we need to draw attention to the fact that when describing what it means for premises to support a conclusion (e.g. in the definition of validity) we referred to "all the premises being true at once". But part of what this "at once" means must be that the key terms of the premises must mean the same thing in all our premises. But if we hold the meaning constant then one of these premises must come out false. - We can also analyse cases of fallacy of equivocation by rewriting the standardize argument and differentiating between the two different definitions of the ambiguous word. - It is a good idea when trying to show that an argument is guilty of equivocation to say which term is used with two meanings, and to try to paraphrase each of these meanings in other words so that the different meanings are clearly identified.

Standardizing an Argument

- Identifying the conclusion and premises of an argument from a passage and setting them up in a format with premises arranged in logical order, subarguments indicated, and the conclusion at the end. All premises and conclusions should appear as complete statements (declarative sentences). - Each premise needs to be stated as a complete declarative sentence that can be read literally - Make sure the reference of the pronouns is clear when the sentence is read in isolation - Make each premise/conclusion self-contained - Number each premise and conclusion - Will allow us to get at the structure of the argument, i.e. identifying sub-arguments - Separate premises and conclusion of sub-argument using an indicator word, identify conclusion using "therefore". - Set sub-argument apart in a cluster (put premises of a sub-argument before the sub-conclusion and the premises of the whole argument before the final conclusion). - Reserve indicator word "therefore" for final conclusion of the whole argument (use others words for sub-arguments) - Ensure no premise/conclusion contains an entire sub-argument--break them down. - Don't mistake sub-arguments with conditional premises though ("if, then" premises). - Represents the structure of the argument in a way that makes it easy to keep track of it, and so to make the job of evaluating arguments easier. - When standardizing arguments, we will take the approach of translating the premises and conclusions into declarative sentences which can be interpreted literally. - We represent subarguments as subarguments by listing the premises of the subargument above the subconclusion they are intended to support. We use indicator words other than "therfore" to indicate subconclucions, reserving "therefore" to indicate the main conclusion of the argument. - It is very important to ensure that each premise and the conclusion of the standardized version of an argument are presented as a self-contained and complete declarative sentence. Part of the task of evaluating the argument is to consider each premise in isolation and ask whether it is something we should accept, i.e. whether we should believe that it is true. Making sure the premises are expressed as declarative sentences makes it much easier to see exactly what is being claimed, and so to evaluate how reasonable the claim is. - Making sure that the reference of proonouns is clear from the statement of the individual premise (and so, in particular, doesn't require that the reader of your standardization refer to some earlier premise to see what that reference is) makes it easier to consider the premise individually. - We number each premise for similar reasons... it is much easier when discussing the argument later on to be able to refer to premise 3, for instance, rather than having to rewrite the premise in whole or in part - Ensure for the conclusion and each individual premise, considered in isolation, that it does not in itself express an argument. - We will follow the policy of standardizing arguments with "missing premise" filled in (indicating that the premise in question is a missing premise by underlining the number) only when we have some good reason to think that the arguer accepts that premise or is committed to it. If a premise really is common knowledge, it might not need to be stated at all.

Conclusion

- In an argument, the claim for which premises are intended as support. It is this claim that the arguer tries to make credible.

How to identify an argument

- It is typically easier to figure out what the author's conclusion is first, then to try to sort out what her premises are. - Once you have identified the conclusion of an argument, that information can often help you figure out what the author intends her premises to be. To make use of this information, you should assume that the author is intelligent and is trying to give a strong argument, ask yourself what is the way of reading the text which makes the author seem as rational as possible. This is called the "principle of charity", and is simply a case of giving the author the benefit of the doubt. - Pay attention to indicator words - The best short advice about how to know whether an author is trying to give an argument is to ask yourself: Is the author trying to establish some claim, stated or unstated, as true? If the answer is yes, then the author is presenting an argument. - Consider the author's intention (e.g. make sure they're not sarcastically making a terrible argument as a joke).

Ambiguity

- Language is used ambiguously if, in the context in which a word or phrase appears, it could have any one of several distinct meanings. - Has to do with a single symbol being used with two or more distinct meanings.

Emotionally charged language

- Language with strong emotional tone, whether negative or positive. - A good rule of thumb when analyzing someone's argument is to try to replace either emotionally charged language or euphemism by a neutral sentence which has the same literal content (presuming you can figure out what that is). This will often identify arguments which fail the G condition in quite a dramatic way.f

Relevance of premises (R condition)

- Premises of an argument are relevant to its conclusion provided they give at least some evidence, or reasons, in favor of that conclusion. - Only when argument is invalid that you even have to raise this - Need to take premises independently and assess how they support the conclusoin - Consider each group of linked premises together

Validity

- See deductive validity. Within logic, the terms deductively valid and valid are nearly always used as equivalent in meaning, although outside logic this is not always the case. - Only has to do with the link between premises and conclusions--you can still have false conclusions and premises. - An argument is valid if it is impossible for these two conditions to be true at once: (1) All the premises are true; (2) The conclusion is false. This can also be stated as "the truth of all the premises is sufficient to guarantee the truth of the conclusion," or "if all the premises were true, then the coonclusion would necessarily be true as well."

Goodness of grounds (G condition)

- Sufficiency of premises to provide good reasons or full evidence for the conclusion. Premises offer sufficient grounds if, assuming that they are accepted, they would be relevant to the conclusion and sufficient to make it reasonable to accept that conclusion. - If you have validity, the grounds will be met - Need to consider premises collectively here - Once you have an argument that isn't valid, the G condition becomes a matter of degree

Critical Thinking

- Thinking that does not blindly accept arguments and conclusions. Rather, it examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, and assesses conclusions. - Ability to understand and evaluate arguments

Principle of Charity

- We should choose the reconstructed argument that gives the benefit of the doubt to the person presenting the argument. - Assume the arguer to be as rational as possible given what they said - Don't rule out the possibility that people sometimes give really terrible arguments

How to use the ARG conditions to identify a cogent argument

1) Check which premises meet the A condition 2) Check whether argument is valid. If no, go to step three. If yes, both the R and the G condition are met. Now ask: is it still valid if we eliminate all the premises which fail to meet the A condition? If yes, the argument is cogent, and we can stop here. 3) The argument is not valid (at least when only acceptable premises are considered). Consider whether the premises are relevant. Consider only the premises which pass both the R and the A condition, how much support do they provide for the conclusion. If it is enough, then the argument passes the G condition, and the argument is cogent.

Three things to consider when diagramming an argument

1. Are any premises linked together? 2. If not, they provide convergent support. 3. Are there counter-considerations?

How to diagram an argument

1. Each premise and conclusion gets a number in a circle; for a numbered list of all the sentences that make up the argument, each sentence has to be included in the diagram. Assumes that you've already removed asides and irrelevant information. Sentences must be declarative, must be able to be read literally, each is self-contained, specify pronoun referent, must not contain a sub-argument... It is a good idea to put the main conclusion at the bottom, since this usually results in easier to read diagrams 2. Draw an arrow from each premise to the conclusion or sub-conclusion that it supports. Sub-conclusions will have arrows that end at them and start from them. The final conclusion will only have arrows going to it. 3. If two ore more premises provide linked support, we will indicate this by putting a plus sign between the circles for these premises, then draw only a single arrow from the set to the conclusion or subconclusion it supports, rather than one from each premise. 4. Counterconsiderations will be distinguised from premises by having a wavy line from a circle with its number to the conclusion it weighs against, instead of a straight arrow 5. Rebuttals will be represented by drawing a straight line with a circle at its head (rather than an arrowhead) from the number of the rebuttal to the wavy line between the counterconsideration it rebuts and the conclusion. Trick: replace the counterconsideration/squiggly line with "you may say that..." and replace the rebutal/round-headed arrow with "but..."

Opinion

A belief typically about a matter open to dispute, where there is not full proof and others have different ideas. Often people are aware that their opinions are not fully backed up by evidence and hold less firmly to them than to other beliefs for which there is more conclusive evidence, less disagreement, or both.

Counterexample

A case that refutes a universal statement.

Unstated, or missing, conclusion

A conclusion not put into words but suggested by the context, wording, and natural logical order of a passage. Note: Unstated conclusions should be added only when there is a clear interpretive justification for doing.

Lexical definition

A definition seeking to describe how a word is actually used. It is tested by reference to the facts of usage. A reportive definition is too broad if it would allow the word to be applied in cases where we would not apply it in ordinary usage. It is too narrow if it would not allow the word to be applied in cases where we would apply it in ordinary usage.

Reportive defintion

A definition seeking to describe how a word is actually used. It is tested by reference to the facts of usage. A reportive definition is too broad if it would allow the word to be applied in cases where we would not apply it in ordinary usage. It is too narrow if it would not allow the word to be applied in cases where we would apply it in ordinary usage.

Stipulative definition

A definition specifying a new or special use for a word.

Begging the question

A fallacy that occurs when one or more premises either state the conclusion (usually in slightly different words) or presuppose that the conclusion is true. Arguments that beg the question are also sometimes called circular arguments.

Ostensive definition

A kind of definition in which the meaning of a word is indicated by pointing at a thing to which the word applies.

Nonargument

A passage or speech that does not contain an argument.

Divergent pattern of argument

A pattern of support in which a single premise is used to support two distinct conclusions.

Acceptability of Premises

A premise in an argument is acceptable if any one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. It is supported by a subargument that is cogent 2. It is cogently supported elsewhere by the arguer or another person, and this fact is noted 3. It is know a priori to be true 4. It is a matter of common knowledge 5. It is supported by appropriate testimony (that is, the claim is not implausible, the sources not unreliable, and the claim is restricted in content to the experience and competence of the person who asserts it.) 6. It is supported by an appropriate appeal to authority 7. it is not known to be unacceptable and can serve provisionally as the basis for argument

Subargument

A smaller argument within a larger one, in which a premise of a main argument is itself defended.

Refuted

A statement is refuted if and only if it is shown, on the basis of acceptable evidence, to be false.

A priori statement

A statement that can be known to be true or false on the basis of logic and reasoning alone, prior to experience.

A posteriori statement

A statement that cannot be known to be true or false on the basis of logic and reasoning alone. Must be proven based on empirical evidence

Common knowledge

A statement that is known by most people or is widely believed by most people and against which there is no known evidence. What is a matter of common knowledge will vary with time and place.

Linear Structure

A structure in which there is a sequence of subarguments, each with one premise. That is to say (1) is put forward to support (2), (2) to support (3), (3) to support (4) and so on, until we reach the final conclusion.

Premise

A supporting reason in an argument. It is put forward as being acceptable and providing rational support for a further claim.

Use (of a word)

A word is used, in a phrase or sentence, when it appears without quotation marks or special typeface or script.

Semantic ambiguity

Ambiguity due to the fact that a word or expression may naturally be interpreted as having more than one distinct meaning. If the ambiguity is found in an expression, it is not due to the structure of the expression but due to the meanings of the words used in it.

Provisional acceptance of conclusion

Acceptance of a conclusion because it is related, by proper reasoning, to premises that have been provisionally accepted. In such a case, the conclusion can be said to be provisionally established: if the premises are acceptable, the conclusion is acceptable too.

Mention (of a word)

Appearance of word surrounded by quotation marks or in special typeface or script to indicate that the word itself is the subject of the discourse. When a word is mentioned it is not used in the normal way.

Fallacy

Argument based on a common mistake in reasoning, a sort of mistake that people tend not to notice. Fallacies are poor arguments but often strike people as cogent.

Faulty appeal to authority

Argument based on authority in which one or more of the conditions of proper appeal to authority are not met.

Whole argument

Argument for a main conclusion, including all subarguments used to support any premises

Conductive Argument

Argument in which premises (typically several in number) are put forward to support a conclusion convergently. Typically, in conductive arguments, we deal with matters on which there are various considerations pros and cons that count for and against the conclusion

Connotation

Associations that accompany a word. Strictly speaking these associations are not part of the meaning of the word. For example, the word fire may suggest, or connote, the warmth of a living room fireplace.

Rhetorical question

Question posed anticipating a particular answer. A rhetorical question is not a request for information; rather, it is a way of expressing a claim. Premises or conclusions or arguments are sometimes stated in rhetorical questions.

Euphemism

Bland, polite, usually abstract language used to refer to things that are embarrassing, uncomfortable, terrible, or in some way appalling. Euphemisms disguise these undesirable features.

Rational persuasion

Causing someone to come to believe a claim bby putting forward good reasons, or a cogent argument, on its behalf.

Deductive Validity

Characteristic of an argument in which the premises deductively entail the conclusion. In a deductively valid argument, it is not possible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true.

Analogy

Comparison based on significant resemblances between the cases that are compared. When the premises are connected to the conclusion on the basis of an analogy, the premises describe similarities between two things and state or assume that those two things will be similar in further ways not described. The claim is made that one of the things has a further property, and the inference is drawn that the other ting will have the same further property.

Qualified or tentative conclusion

Conclusion stated in such a way that it is reasonable to attribute less than a high degree of commitment to the arguer.

ARG Conditions

Conditions of a cogent argument. The premises must: (1) be acceptable, (2) be relevant to the conclusion, and (3) when considered together, provide sufficient grounds for the conclusion. For an argument to be cogent, all ARG conditions must be satisfied.

Operational definition

Definition by means of specification of a procedure that will permit observations and measurement to determine whether the word applies. An example is the definition of intelligence in terms of results on IQ tests.

Logic

Study of valid forms of argument.

Neutral language

Language with little or no emotional tone.

Loaded language

Language with strong emotional tone, whether negative or positive.

Degree of commitment (to conclusion)

Level of commitment, on the part of the arguer, to the conclusion that he or she is putting forward. The arguer may claim confidently that something is the case or may indicate some degree of tentativeness by saying that is probably the case, may be the case, or could be the case.

Literal meaning

Meaning that does not involve interpreting any words used in a metaphorical or figurative way; words are used straightforwardly according to lexical meanings.

Deductive entailment

Most complete relationship of logical support. If, and only if, one statement entails another, then it is impossible for the second statement to be false when the first statement is true.

Figurative meaning

Nonliteral, or metaphorical meaning. For example, if we say "she was crushed by his remark," the word crushed is used metaphorically.

Charity as a principle of interpretation

On a very generous principle of charity, not supported here, we would make out an argument to be as reasonable and plausible as we could, always giving the arguer the benefit of the doubt. On a more modest principle of charity, recommended in the textbook, we would avoid attributing to an arguer loose reasoning and implausible claims unless there is good evidence, in the presented speech or writing, for doing so. Sometimes it is more charitable to attribute a missing premise than an implausible premise to the arguer.

Authority

One who has specialized knowledge of a subject and is recognized to be an expert on that subject. Appeals to authority are legitimate provided the claim supported is in an area that is genuinely an area of knowledge; the person cited is recognized as an expert within that field; the experts in the field agree; and the person cited is credible and reliable.

Unacceptability of Premises

Premises in an argument are unacceptable if one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. They are refutable on the basis of common knowledge, a priori knowledge, or reliable knowledge from testimony or authority. 2. They are known, a priori, to be false 3. Several premises, taken together, can be shown to produce a contradiction, so that the premises are inconsistent 4. They are vague or ambiguous to such an extent that it is not possible to determine what sort of evidence would establish them as acceptable or unacceptable 5. They could not be rationally accepted by someone who does not already accept the conclusion. In such cases, the argument begs the question.

Scope (of a premise or conclusion)

Quantity of members of a group to which the claim is intended to apply. Scope is indicated by such words as all, none, most, many, some, and a few.

"Our Side" Bias

Selective application of terms, or principles or norms, so as to treat one's own side more leniently than the other side. One uses favourable terms for one's own side and unfavourable terms for the other side, though the phenomena being described are relevantly similar. In other words, one employs a double standard in one's usage of words.

Inductive support

Support from experience to a conclusion about other experience, based on the assumption that relevant similarities in the world will persist. When there is inductive support, the premises do not deductively entail the conclusion.

Argument by epithet

Support of a claim simply by applying an emotionally loaded term, with no substantive premise. Example: "You shouldn't even try for a peace agreement. Thinking you could get one is just naïve."

Provisional acceptance of premises

Tentative supposition of premises in a context where there is no special basis for regarding them as unacceptable.

Main Conclusion

The main claim defended in an argument that contains subarguments.

Inconsistency

Two statements are inconsistent with each other if, putting them together, we would arrive at a contradiction. A single statement is also inconsistent if it entails a contradiction. Such a statement is not acceptable because we know a priori that it is false. Explicit inconsistency occurs when the contradition is apparent on the surface, in the way the statements are worded. implicit inconsistency occurs when the meaning of the statements allows us to infer, by valid deduction, a further statement that is a contradiction.

Testimony

Typically, statements based on personal experience or personal knowledge. A statement is accepted on the basis of a person's testimony if his or her asserting it renders it acceptable. We can rationally accept a claim on the basis of another person's testimony unless (1) the claim is implausible, or (2) the person or the source in which the claim is quoted lacks credibility, or (3) the claim goes beyond what the person could know from his or her own experience or competence.

Sound argument

Valid argument in which the premises are true and deductively entail the conclusion. A sound argument must therefore have a true conclusion.

Humpty-Dumpty theory of language

View that a speaker can make a word mean anything he or she wants it to mean.

Denotation

What a word denotes is what it refers to, not what it suggests or connotes.

Indicator words

Words such as for, since, thus, therefore, and because, typically used in arguments to indicate that a person is reasoning from premises to a conclusion. However, these words may also occur in explanations and elsewhere. They do not appear only in arguments.