Summary of Analytical Thinking & Critical Reasoning - PHI

Argument
pertainty ve truth of premises quarantees truth of conclusion i


to be
It's IMPOSSIBLE for conclusion
false if the premises are true !
"probability"
Inductive premises supports conclusion (but doesn't guarantee truth) * If premises are all true ,
conclusion is LIKELY to be true too !
·
Degree of Strength
-Defeater info that weakens the
Sentence Moods
:
argument
Indicative ( )
.




Presents FACTS
·


Jen's parents
.



ex . are from Tw
Most TW kids speaks TWness
·

Imperative forms COMMAND/REQUEST
Jen was born & raised Argentina
Jen speaks TWness &
Interrogative I ? ) ask QUESTION
. in
·




·

Exclamatory 1 ! ) express STRONG EMOTIONS
What's "good" argument ?a

Validity IF all premises are true
,
then conclusion MUST also be true !

soundness valid + all premises are true

·

Types of Argument & 's
-Statistical Argument : % Is the claim
strong ?
-
Inductive Generalization "If :
most cases are similar, you can imply the next too .
"
How similar are they ?
Analogical Argument
"
-
: "Ania & I are twins ,
if Ania likes chocolate I prob , , also like chocolate .
How extensive is it ?
-
Inference to Best Explanation :
Think of Dr: "lost smell , high fever ...
prob Covid
.
.
"
Does
hypothesis explain it well ?


Reconstructing
Sub-conclusions
Implicit Premises Premises that's not stated, but it's necessary to make argument valid
Social Dimensions
Rhetoric Persuading who reasoning (non-rationall
ex .
repetition of strong statements

· Ad Hominem :
Trying to attack the person rather than argument (evidence)
·
Ad Populum : [Directed] to the people ex .
"


Most ppl are
going to the party , we should
go too !
"




·
Ad Baculum :
Appeal to Force
-




·
Ad Misericordiam Appeal to Pity :

·
Ad Consequentiam Appeal to Consequences :




·
Emotional Language : Rhetorical use of language (involves
slogneering & cliche)
"Opinion"
well w/ others
"Bring tgt"
Dialectic Arguing // Discourse Polarisation Intellectual
, , Humility Integrity Get to truth
, ,


·
Constructive Discussion (not to win)
Aim get closer to truth
to
-




Claimant VS Respondent continues
Understand why ppl disagree till BEDROCK (Fundamental)
.



-


-

Trys to MEET Offers OBJECTION
Disagreement
-



D
// Not compromisea
·
4 Golden Rules respondent's OBJECTIONS -


Request CLARIFICATION
a




-

Respond to the ARGUMENT (give reasons (

-
Track the BURDEN of PROOF (It's not respondent's job to disprove other's argument it's ,
their job to prove it .
)

-
Demand OVERALL CONSISTENCY I can't just swich side/give exceptions (
Be CHARITABLE /Taking the strongest version of someone's argument)//Opposite to Strawman's
Fallacy
-




Informal Fallacies "thinking mistake"

Strawman Fallacy : Present counter
argument in a weaker way
11 Rhetorical Fallacies
·
BEGGING THE D'S ·
DEMANDING UNREASONABLE JUSTIFICATION
[when premises rely on conclusion] [ Like being a kid to ask "BUT WHY"]