premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of ...joemixie.com/scsu100/critical thinking...

Relevance

• Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true

• Premises are irrelevant when they do not

1

Non Sequitur

• Latin for “it does not follow”

• Irrelevant premises

2

Exercise 2.6A

1-10 Do as class

3

Independent Premise

• A premise that is intended to provide support for the conclusion by itself

4

Dependent Premises

• A premise that is intended to provide support for the argument’s conclusion only when combined with another premise in the argument

5

6

Exercise 2.7

• Break up into groups • A 1-10

7

2.7A #1

(1) Socrates was a human being (2) All human beings are mortal Therefore, (3) Socrates was mortal

Argument with relevant, dependent premises

8

2.7A #2

(1) Transfatty acids lead to heart disease (2) Children shouldn’t be given foods that lead to heart disease Therefore, (3) Children should not be given foods with transfatty acids

Argument with relevant, dependent premises

9

2.7A #3

(I) Julia Roberts is either a man or a woman (2) Julia Roberts is a man Therefore, (3) Julia Roberts isn’t a woman Argument with relevant, dependent premises

10

2.7A #4 (I) If you walk on the lines in the sidewalk,

you’ll be eaten by bears (2) Sometime in the next week, someone will

walk on the lines in the sidewalk Therefore, (3) Sometime in the next week, someone will

be eaten by bears. Argument. Relevant (but not much) dependent

premises 11

2.7A #5

(I) All cows are pigs (2) All pigs are ducks Therefore, (3) All cows are ducks

Argument with relevant, dependent premises

12

2.7A #6

(1) If Reza had fallen, he would have a bump on his head (2) Reza didn’t have a bump on his head Therefore, (3) Reza didn’t fall

Argument with relevant, dependent premises

13

2.7A #7

(I) The coffee cup was still warm (2) The newspaper was open on the dining room table (3) The microwave was heating up a frozen dinner [4] Each of these three scenes indicate someone was recently present in the room Therefore, [5] If someone was recently in the room, he or she couldn’t have gone far Therefore, (6) The killer couldn’t have gone far

Argument with relevant, independent premises

14

2.7A #8

(1) Many people think that air pollution is a serious problem (2) Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of air pollution Therefore, (3) Most people support laws requiring a reduction in the emissions produced by cars

Argument with relevant, dependent premises 15

2.7A #9

Not an argument

16

2.7A #10

(I) A survey indicated 26% of voters in favor of Smith (2) A slightly later survey indicated 23% of voters favored Smith Therefore, (3) It is likely that about 25% of voters will favor Smith in the election

Argument with relevant, dependent premises

17

Arguing about Arguments

18

Counter Argument

• An argument that draws a conclusion opposed to another argument

19

Refutation Argument

• An argument whose conclusion is that another argument fails the true premises or proper form test

20

Fallacies

• Untrue, false, inaccurate, wrong reasoning

• Something you don’t want to commit

21

Red Herring

• The Red Herring fallacy occurs whenever someone makes a statement or offers an argument that distracts attention away from the argument under discussion.

22

Straw Man Fallacy Easy Target Fallacy

• When you restate your opponent's argument in an inaccurate way so that you can argue against it

23

Appeal to Fear

• An Appeal to Fear occurs when someone claims that if you don’t do or don’t believe something, something bad will happen to you

24

Appeal to Pity

• Appeals to Pity are a close relative of Appeals to Fear.

• An Appeal to Pity occurs when someone claims that if you don’t do or don’t believe something, something bad will happen to someone else.

25

Appeal to Popularity

• The fallacy of Appeal to Popularity occurs when someone argues that a view is true on the grounds that it’s popular

26

Appeal to Novelty or Tradition

• The fallacy of Appeal to Novelty or Tradition occurs when someone argues that a statement is true because people have either believed it for a short time (novelty) or for a long time (tradition).

27

2.9

• Do as class

28

Ad Hominem

• A person commits the Ad Hominem fallacy when he attacks a person instead of arguing against the view the person asserts

29

Appeal to Ignorance

• Someone commits the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance when he claims that a statement is true because it hasn’t been shown to be false.

30

Guilt by Association

• A form of the Ad Hominem Fallacy

• When people are attacked based upon their association with a person, group or view that is considered objectionable

31

Begging the Question

• When you assume to be truth that which you are trying to prove

32

Exercise 2.10

• Break up into groups

• A 1-10

33

Chapter 2 Review

34

What makes a Good Argument?

35

Two Characteristics of Good Arguments

• 1. The premises are true

• 2. The argument has proper form

36

True Premises

• The premises are true when what they say about the world is accurate

37

Proper Form

There is a relationship or connection between the premises and conclusion that make you believe the conclusion is true

38

Deductive Argument

You go from a general principle to a specific example

It gives necessity

39

(1) All men are mortal (2) Socrates is a man Therefore (3) Socrates is mortal

40

If all the members of the class of things called MEN have a particular characteristic called MORTALITY

And Socrates is a member of that class called

MEN Then Socrates MUST have that characteristic

called MORTALITY

41

Why? Because we have established a necessary /

logical connection between the premises and the conclusion

Such that if the premises are true then the

conclusion must be true

42

Examples

(1) All men are mortal (1) All A has B (2) Socrates is a man (2) C is A There: Therefore (3) Socrates is mortal (3) C has B

43

Valid Deductive Argument

• The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises

44

Sound Deductive Argument

• Valid argument with true premises

45

Audience

• The audience of the argument is the group that the person making the argument wants to convince

46

The Problem of Ignorance

• The problem of ignorance is that we don’t know everything

47

48

Modus Ponens (MP)

Affirm the Antecedent (1) If A, then B (2)We have A Therefore (3) We can affirm B

49

Correct Form Example Affirm the Antecedent

(1) If Mary is a mother (A), then she must be a woman (B)

(2) Mary is a mother (A)

(3) Therefore, she must be a woman (B)

50

Incorrect Form Example: Affirm the Consequent

(1) If Mary is a mother (A), then she must be a woman (B)

(2) Mary is a woman (B) (3) Therefore, she must be a mother (A)

You must learn the FORM

• 1. If it rains tomorrow (A), then I will bring my umbrella (B)

• 2. I brought my umbrella (B) • 3. Therefore what?

51

Correct Form

• 1. If it rains tomorrow (A), then I will bring my umbrella (B)

• 2. It rained (A) • 3. Therefore?

52

53

Modus Tollens (MT)

Deny the Consequent If A, then B We do not have B Therefore, we do not have A

54

Correct Form Example Deny the Consequent

(1) If Mary is a mother (A), then she must be a woman (B)

(2) Mary is not a woman (-B)

(3) Therefore, she must not be a mother (-A)

55

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

Deny the Disjunct Either A or B Either A or B Not A Not B Therefore B Therefore A

56

Reductio ad Absurdem (RAA)

Reduce to an absurdity Reduce to a contradiction

57

Inductive Arguments

From Specific Examples to General Principle

Gives Probability

58

Example

(1) There are trees on Island 1 (2) There are trees on Island 2 (3) There are trees on Island 3 ________________________ (4) All Islands have trees

Weak vs. Strong Inductive Arguments

The more examples / evidence, the stronger

the argument 1,000,000,000 Islands have trees Therefore all Island have trees

59

Strong and Weak Inductive Arguments

• Strong Inductive Arguments have many examples (Cogent)

• Weak Inductive Arguments have few examples

60

Relevance

• Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true

• Premises are irrelevant when they do not

61

Non Sequitur

• Latin for “it does not follow”

• Irrelevant premises

62

Independent Premise

• A premise that is intended to provide support for the conclusion by itself

63

Dependent Premises

• A premise that is intended to provide support for the argument’s conclusion only when combined with another premise in the argument

64

65

Counter Argument

• An argument that draws a conclusion opposed to another argument

• What your opponent gives

• An argument against your

66

Refutation Argument

• An argument whose conclusion is that another argument fails the true premises or proper form test

• Not necessarily against your argument, but that your argument is wrong

67

Fallacies

• Untrue, false, inaccurate, wrong reasoning

• Something you don’t want to commit

68

Red Herring

• The Red Herring fallacy occurs whenever someone makes a statement or offers an argument that distracts attention away from the argument under discussion.

69

Straw Man Fallacy Easy Target Fallacy

• When you restate your opponent's argument in an inaccurate way so that you can argue against it

70

Appeal to Fear

• An Appeal to Fear occurs when someone claims that if you don’t do or don’t believe something, something bad will happen to you

71

Appeal to Pity

• Appeals to Pity are a close relative of Appeals to Fear.

• An Appeal to Pity occurs when someone claims that if you don’t do or don’t believe something, something bad will happen to someone else.

72

Appeal to Popularity

• The fallacy of Appeal to Popularity occurs when someone argues that a view is true on the grounds that it’s popular

73

Appeal to Novelty or Tradition

• The fallacy of Appeal to Novelty or Tradition occurs when someone argues that a statement is true because people have either believed it for a short time (novelty) or for a long time (tradition).

74

Ad Hominem

• A person commits the Ad Hominem fallacy when he attacks a person instead of arguing against the view the person asserts

75

Appeal to Ignorance

• Someone commits the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance when he claims that a statement is true because it hasn’t been shown to be false.

76

Guilt by Association

• A form of the Ad Hominem Fallacy

• When people are attacked based upon their association with a person, group or view that is considered objectionable

77

Begging the Question

• When you assume to be truth that which you are trying to prove

78