Glossary
Argument
Claim with reasons/evidence supporting it
The relationship between a claim and the reason/evidence
Claim= conclusion
Reason/evidence= premise
Deductive argument
Premises successfully prove the conclusion
Inductive Argument
Premises give reasons to believe the conclusion is likely to be true
Therefore never valid even though it can be very strong
Statement
Doesn’t defend/convince/motivate
Unsupported claim not supported by premises
Is true, false, or unknown
Rhetorical question
Often a statement
Disguised as a question
Premises
Reasons backing up an argument
Assumption of bi-valence
Every statement is either true or false, weather we know it or not
Command
An instruction
Fallacy
Bad/problematic way of reasoning
Explanation
Not an argument
Doesn’t try to convince the reader a claim/conclusion is true
Casual story
Normative Claim
Explaining what ought to happen
Without a normative claim, a normative conclusion is impossible
Normative conclusion
Explains what should happen
Often appeals to morals
,Relativism
Accepting all arguments/opinions as true
A load of shit
o Philosophers don’t believe
Valid
Conclusion is always true as long as the premises are true
Sound
Must be valid
Must have true premises
Conclusion always true
o If the premises of a valid argument are true the conclusion must be
true
Sufficient condition
X will result in y
Y can still happen with D or F
Necessary condition
Without X, Y cannot happen
X does not guarantee Y, but is needed
Eliminate Syllogism
Either X or Y
Not X
Therefor Y
Or
Inclusive
Either P or Q
o Can be P
o Can be Q
o Can be both
Categorical syllogism
Valid
o All/some X are Y
o All Y are Z
o Therefore, all/some X are Z
o Either use all for both, or some for both
Invalid
o All X are Y
o All Y are Z
o Therefore, some X are Z
Formal Fallacy
See it’s a fallacy by looking at the form
Has an invalid argument form
,Argument
A conclusion with premise(es) justifying it
Deduction and Induction
Deductive argument
Premises successfully prove the conclusion
Inductive Argument
Premises give reasons to believe the conclusion is likely to be true
Therefore never valid even though it can be very strong
Finding an argument
Find conclusion
Find premises
Use indicators
o Words/phrases typically before/after a premise/conclusion
,Obstacles to critical thinking
Bias
Personal Bias
o Matches your beliefs
Liverpool are better than united
o Holds beliefs which will benefit you
People in my profession should be paid more
o Overestimate your own abilities
Cultural Bias
o Favour views that conform to our beliefs
Language and knowledge/ Rhetoric devices
Random Sentences
o No logical order to the argument
o Can’t assess it because there is no argument to assess
Vagueness
o More information needed to critically assess what has been said
o Not specific enough
“new and improved”
Empty Rhetoric
o Don’t really say anything, just say what people want to hear
o Information missing that would enable us to assess
“yeas we can”
Ambiguity
o Can be interpreted in more than one way
Nothing is brighter than a supernova
A candle is brighter than nothing
Therefore a candle is brighter than a supernova
Emotive language
o Appealing to the readers emotion
o Not reasoning using the most neutral language
Relativism/Subjectivism
Accepting all arguments/opinions as true
A load of shit
o Philosophers don’t believe
,Fallacies
Fallacy of Evidence
Can be true but doesn’t completely support/justify the argument
Premises have some bearing on the conclusion, but not the way the
arguer suggests
Fallacy of relevance
Can be true but doesn’t support/justify the argument
Premises don’t support the conclusion because they aren’t relevant
Ad hominem Fallacy
Attack the person saying the argument instead of the argument
o Usually negative
“don’t believe what Tracy says about global warming. She is
a dope smoking Hippy”
o Can also be positive
There must be life on mars. Mr. Jones said so and he is a
college professor
Attacking the Motive
Inverse of hominem fallacy
If somebody has a motive to support X, therefore anything he says
supporting X is false
Just because you have a motive to believe something doesn’t mean you
are wrong
Once again not looking at the actual argument
Motive should raise suspicion but doesn’t on its own disprove an
argument. Cause someone to suspend judgment until evidence supporting
Look Who’s Talking
Premises 1. John says you should stop smoking because it is bad
Premises 2. John Smokes. Not practicing what he preaches
Conclusion. John’s claims about smoking are false
Just because you are a hypocrite doesn’t mean you are wrong
,Two wrongs make a right fallacy
Structure
o Premise: X is wrong
o Premise: But Y is wrong too or even worse
o Conclusion: Therefore X is really okay
X can still be wrong as well even if to a lesser extent
Being a lesser evil doesn’t make it a virtue
Is it a fallacy if your wrong is preventing a worse wrong?
Scare Tactics
Threat unrelated to the outcome
o Voting for the ANC is voting for the end of South Africa
Appeal to pity
Some aspect of your argument appealing to emotions
A fallacy if you only appealing to pity
Bandwagon Fallacy
Jumping on the bandwagon
It is a good argument if the people have had relevant experience
o All eaten at a restaurant and say its good
Straw Man fallacy
Misrepresents a claim to make it look silly
Makes a caricature of the argument
Exaggerate one side completely
Pick up on one part of an argument and running with it
Red herring Fallacy
Irrelevant claim
Aimed to distract from conclusion
Also used in detective novels
o False clues
We should ban alcohol consumption
o Very bad for children
o Irrelevant because of the age limit
,Zeno’s Paradox
Achilles and the tortoise
Read through
The arrow
Read through
, Deductive Arguments
Deductive argument
Premises successfully prove the conclusion
Either valid or sound
o Valid
Conclusion is always true as long as the premises are true
o Sound
Must be valid
Must have true premises
Conclusion always true
If the premises of a valid argument are true the
conclusion must be true because it is valid
Valid Deductive Argument Forms
Modus Ponens
If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q
Modus Tollens
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore not P
Syllogisms
3 lines
First 2 lines = premises
Third line = conclusion
Categorical syllogism
At least one premise states something about a category
Form
o All x are y
o Some y are z
o Therefore, some x are z
Eliminative Syllogism
Argument of elimination
Form
o Either x or y
o Not x
o Therefore y
Not the other way around
o OR IS INCLUSIVE
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller byrondevin. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R150,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
