Docedyth

Discuss some of the differences between causal arguments and both inductive generalizations and analogous arguments. Also discuss the difference between making a causal argument and establishing true causation, if there is any. Can you provide an example? In translating casual arguments help with identifying both the resulting and the precipitating events, key elements for determining the strength of the argument. (Jackson 2016) Ex: I seen the young woman texting and driving (precipitating event...

Discuss some of the differences between causal arguments and both inductive generalizations and analogous arguments. Also discuss the difference between making a causal argument and establishing true causation, if there is any. Can you provide an example? In translating casual arguments help with identifying both the resulting and the precipitating events, key elements for determining the strength of the argument. (Jackson 2016) Ex: I seen the young woman texting and driving (precipitating event...

PHIL-447N Week 5 Discussion Question 1 – Working With Categorical Syllogisms (graded) Chapter 7 Written Response Translating into Categorical Propositions I) Terms Without nouns 1. Is th is sentence in standard form? “Some elephants are large.” Yes No 2. Rewrite it in standard form here: Or translated: “Some elephants are large animals” II) Nonstandard Verbs: “will”, “would” 1. Are these sentences in standard form? Yes No “Some people would rather flunk than study.” “All ...

PHIL 447N Week 5 Quiz (MCQs) 1. Question : (TCOs 1 & 2) Categorical logic originated with the work of Aristotle, and it is based on information group ed in classes based upon which pair of logical principles? Student Answer: Inclusion and proportion Exclusion and translation Exclusion and discrimination Inclusion and exclusion Instructor Explanation: Chapter 8 Points Received: 4 of 4 Comments: 2. Question : (TCO 4) Each of the four standard-form categorical claims in categorical logic can be dis...

Post 1 I decided to sway a bit away from the typical fallacies and go with "Argument" from outrage fallacy. Our book defines "Argument" from outrage as an appeal-to-emotion fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer “supports” a contention by trying to make us angry rather than by producing a real argument (Moore, 2014, p.442). For example, I would like to use the recent deaths of the men by the hands of police officers. I have noticed that instead of producing hard facts the media lik...

When I think of the term expert, I think of someone who has learned everything there is to know about something. This person has many years of experience in a certain field of work. They combine their knowledge and experience to be proficient and skillful in a certain area, and they can teach someone what they know to help that person to become knowledgeable too. How important are facts in the process of forming an opinion? Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts in makin...

1. (TCO 6) In Chapter 4, we learned how to assess the credibility of a claim. Consider the following passage: “On Thanksgiving Day 1990, an image said by some to resemble the Virgin Mary was obser ved in a stained glass window of St. Dominic's Church in Colfax, California. A physicist asked to investigate said the image was caused by sunlight shining through the window and reflecting from a newly installed hanging light fixture. Others said the image was a miracle.” Whose explanation is mos...

Truth function claims are composed of simple claims in which the claims are linked or related by logical operators. For example - the simple claim "Jack fell down the hill" has a truth value - it i s either true or false. It is a simple truth-functional claim. Truth-functional arguments, however, are formed with compound claims. Compound claims are simple claims that are joined by an operator. There are four types of truth-functional claims: negation, conjunction, disjunction, and conditional....

Based on what you have read in the text, the lecture, and any other sources you find helpful to your understanding of deductive arguments, explain the structure of a deductive argument in your own wo rds. Answer: The structure of a deductive argument is its has three parts to it, which are the central premise, the lesser premise, and the conclusion. A deductive argument is an argument that needs to be valid by guarantee that the conclusion is true by making the premises accurate as well. Go to t...

Self-Assessment Question: I believe our book is a trusted source of information, since it was written by an expert in the pertinent field. Initial Post: How important are facts in the process o f forming an opinion? Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts in making a judgment. Facts play significant role in making a person’s opinion. There are facts that are true and credible and facts that only that individual believes as to be true and credible. Facts also consist of ...