standardize and assess arguments (Exam 1 PHIL 112) Flashcards
Argument
a set of claims which one or more of them, premises, are put forward as reasons to support a conclusion (also a claim)
- follows numerical format and has a “Therefore,” before the conclusion
Indicator Words
suggest the presence of argument and help indicate its structure
- premise and conclusion indicators
Premise Indicators
claims offering evidence intended to support the conclusion (since/ because/ for)
Conclusion Indicators
the claim statement trying to be supported (therefore/ thus/ so/ accordingly)
Must have a minimum of ___ claims to have an argument
2; one premise and one conclusion
Standardizing arguments
putting them in a form of a correct argument: numerical claims and a therefore before the conclusion.
- “thus” before subconclusion in subarguments
have charity
Steps to standardize arguments
- check if it is an argument
- identify conclusion
- put each claim in T/F phrase form in complete sentence avoid rephasing unless necessary
- add conclusion indicators
Rules for unstated premises
- must have a logical gap between premises and conclusion
- gap must be able to be filled
- gap must be something that arguer is committed to and has context
- premise must be plausible principle of charity
Principle of Charity
don’t alter an argument to be better/ worse than it is
Degree of commitment statements
high certainty: definitely, certainly, absolutely
Low certainty: likely, probably, sometimes, probably
Scope Indicators
indicate greater/ lesser group
Ex) some, all, none, occasionally
Conjunction Rules in Initial unstandardized arguments
- “and” allows for the breaking up of premises
- “if… then,” statements cannot be broken apart or you lose meaning
Deductively valid
if premises are true, conclusions MUST be true
Any argument with a false premise is a _____ argument
failed argument; it is not cogent
Sound Argument
valid argument with true premises (cannot have a false conclusion)
Assessing argument ARG method:
A cceptability of premises
R elevance of premises to conclusion
G rounds sufficient to establish truth
R and G are logical
Cogent Argument
strong and valid argument with a true and rationally acceptable premises. BEST form of argument
Common Knowledge
acceptance based on evidence
“every animal has a reproductive system”
a priori true
acceptance independent from evidence; by definition
“every square has 4 straight sides”
provisional support
accepting for the sake of the argument
testimony
acceptance must have
- form “I have seen…”
- plausibility
- direct experience
- not judgement
“I saw him leave at 9 pm”
proper authority
acceptance must have
- a reliable expert
- be in the field they studied
- experts in general agreement
“Expert X claims…”
cogent subargument
agreement has a subconclusion with a cogent subargument (even if the subconclusion is independently true)
only use for subconclusion, still assess subargument
easily refutable
unacceptability used when 1 counter example can falsify a universal claim
