Exam 1 Flashcards
(91 cards)
1
Q
normative angle
A
how we should reason
2
Q
descriptive angle
A
how we do reason
3
Q
what is reasoning?
A
to make an inference (argument)
4
Q
what is an argument?
A
a belief that one claim is true because some other claim is evidence for truth
5
Q
what are the parts of an argument?
A
premise(s) and conclusion
6
Q
what is a premise?
A
reason or evidence for believing a conclusion
7
Q
conclusion
A
claim for which evidence is given, which is backed up or justified
8
Q
what is internal reason for caring about arguments?
A
helps rationalize the arguments you make in your own thinking
9
Q
what is an external reason for caring about arguments?
A
arguments can be used for persuasion
10
Q
indicator words
A
words that typically indicate the presence of either a premise or conclusion, and therefore an argument
11
Q
claim
A
statement that reports a fact about the world
12
Q
conditional
A
a CLAIM that reports a fact in which one event/state depends on another (if an only if)
13
Q
factual correctness
A
achieved if all premises of an argument are true
14
Q
logical strength
A
achieved if claims cumulatively give sufficient evidence for the conclusion
15
Q
cogent
A
an argument that is both factually correct and logically strong
16
Q
argument
A
one or more claims (premises) used to back up a final (conclusion)
17
Q
premise
A
a claim that supports a specific conclusion
18
Q
conclusion
A
a claim that is supported by one or more premises
19
Q
opinion
A
a claim that is a belief
20
Q
can you persuade without making an argument?
A
yes
21
Q
what is the easiest way to find an argument?
A
indicator words
22
Q
phrase to remember conditionals
A
if and only if
23
Q
what is the difference between arguments and persuasion?
A
not all arguments are persuasion; not all persuasion is an argument
24
Q
analyze
A
to break something up into pieces to better understand it
25
how do you analyze an argument
identify premise(s) and conclusion and determine how they are related (uncovering structure)
26
how do you know when a sentence is making more than one claim?
the claims can be proved true or false independent of one another
27
standardization
number list of claims and conclusions with the highest number being assigned to the final conclusion
28
diagramming
pictoral representation of how premises related to their conclusions independent of the subject matter
29
->
inference
30
+
conjunction (multiple premises supporting one conclusion)
31
simple argument
contains only one inference
32
complex argument
contains at least two inferences; at least one claim will be both an inference and a conclusion
33
direct reason
premise that directly supports conclusion
34
indirect reason
premise that indirectly supports conclusion
35
is analysis a descriptive or normative process?
descriptive (does not involve evaluating argument's cogency
36
why do we try to analyze arguments?
to determine the structure of an author's intended argument
37
logical/evidential use of "because"
gives a reason to believe a conclusion is true
38
causal/explanatory use of "because"
introduces claim that explains something that is already meant to be taken as true
39
how to determine between causal and logical use of because
is the claim that comes after the 'because' already taken to be true?
40
interrogating the text
method for finding premises and conclusions without indicator words
41
1st question for interrogating text
what is the point of the piece?
42
2ndary questions for interrogating text
am i being persuaded?
| am i being given reasons to believe that something is true?
43
' '
used to mention a word (versus use it)
44
The Rationality Assumption
people intend to offer good arguments and ar generally capable of doing so; being charitable to the author
45
charitable
assuming authors intent to use good arguments on the principle of the Rationality Assumption
46
missing premise
an implicit or unstated premise that positively connects a given premise to a given conclusion
47
rhetorical questions
questions that state a claim
48
Rule for Missing Premises
include only the MPs in a standardization that are required to connect the author's stated premise(s) with the conclusion (in accordance with the Rationality Assumption)
49
is it possible to have unconscious beliefs?
yes
50
argumentative gap
condition of an argument if not all premises lead directly to a conclusion
51
conditional method for MPs
if [argument's stated premise], then it is true or likely true that [arguments stated conclusion]
52
what is the best way for attributing charitable MPs to an argument with an argumentative gap?
the conditional method
53
how do you know if an argumentative has an argumentative gap
ask: could a rational person objective in principle to a given premise?
54
how many MPs can there be in an argument?
up to one for each inference
55
what must you do before deciding if a MP is necessary?
find the MP!
56
why would you use the conditional method?
bridges the argumentative gap without assuming the author is trying to say anything they may not be trying to say
57
peripheral information
claims in an argument that are neither a premise or a conclusion
58
report
type of peripheral information that is a description of an argument that is being made by someone who is not the author
59
conjoined premises
premises that are meant to be taken together to support a conclusion
60
independent premises
premises that are meant to be taken as independent of one another in support of the conclusion
61
how do you know if two premises are independent?
only if the author explicitly states that they are meant to be taken as separate
62
why do we usually assume premises are conjoined?
it is more charitable to the author if we assume the premises are meant to be taken together
63
objections
type of peripheral information in which an author interrupts their own argument to acknowledge the opposite perspective to their argument
64
types of peripheral information
objections, reports of other arguments
65
do you standardize objections to an argument?
no
66
what do you do first - analysis or evaluation?
analysis
67
are arguments standardized using conditional method inherently factually correct or logically strong?
logically strong
68
surface-level analysis
represents an argument as stated
69
deep analysis
includes necessary missing premise(s) and conclusion
70
if a surface-level argument is uncogent, does the cogency change when it becomes a deep-level analysis
no (but can factual correctness or logical strength)
71
how do you know if a MP is factually correct
MP is factually correct if connection between given premise and conclusion is strong (if surface-level analysis is logically strong)
72
arguments from analogy
author draws a conclusion about something on the basis of its similarity to another thing
73
how do you evaluate an argument from analogy
need to figure whether the noted similarities are relevant to the inferred similarity
74
argument from inductive generalization
argument based on "if, then" logic
75
how do you evaluate an argument from inductive generalization?
need to decide if the viewpoint of the example in the argument is representative of the larger whole it is meant to portray
76
bridge premise
another name for a missing premise that connects given premise to given conclusion
77
whose perspective should we consider when determining an argument's cogency?
our own perspective
78
belief
a personal attitude towards factual correctness
79
antecedent
given premise that is factored into a conditional claim
80
consequent
given conclusion that is factored into a conditional claim
81
types of conditionals
statistical or universal
82
statistical conditional
a conditional that is likely true - the antecedent likely makes the consequent true
83
universal conditional
a conditional that is indisputably true - the antecedent ensures the consequent
84
straw man argument
an argument that draws a negative conclusion about a claim/viewpoint/organization on the basis of a misrepresentation
85
is a universal conditional true or false in the case that the antecedent is true and the consequent is false
false
86
ambiguous conditional
another name for the conditionals created using the conditional method for missing premises
87
are ambiguous conditionals considered universal or statistical?
statistical
88
contextual straw man argument
argument that misrepresents a claim/viewpoint/organization by taking the opposition's own words and quoting them out of context
89
why are contextual straw man arguments more sinister?
they are intentionally misleading and take advantage of our innate trust of others' words
90
how do you identify straw man arguments?
look up the claim/viewpoint/organization being criticized
evaluate the plausability of the way the claim/viewpoint/organization is represented
identify who the author is an if there are any likely biases (the less neutral, the more suspicious we should be)
91
are straw man arguments intentional?
most are not, though some are
