Test 3

Question 1

Implicit Premises and Conclusions

Answer 1

-Some arguments may be said to have “implicit” premises

• Ex: She must be a witch! She flies in the air on a broomstick!
  
  • Without Implicit Premise:
    
    1. She flies in the air on a broomstick.
    2. Therefore, she is a witch.
       
       • A
       • Three dots B
  • With Implicit Premise:
    
    1. She flies in the air on a broomstick.
    2. [Only witches fly in the air on a broomstick.]
    3. Therefore, she is a witch.
       
       • A
       • [A → B]
       • Three dots B

-Some arguments may be said to have “implicit” conclusions

• Ex: The only way I’d be considered for that job is if I already had an undergraduate degree, and I have 2 years left to finish school
  
  • Without Implicit Conclusion:
    
    1. The only way I’d be considered for that job is if I already had an undergraduate degree.
    2. I have 2 years left to finish school.
       - A → B
       - ~B
  • With Implicit Conclusion:
    
    1. The only way I’d be considered for that job is if I already had an undergraduate degree.
    2. I have 2 years left to finish school.
    3. [Therefore, I won’t be considered for that job.]
       - A → B
       - ~B
       - Three dots ~A
       - OR option 2
    4. The only way I’d be considered for that job is if I already had an undergraduate degree.
    5. I have 2 years left to finish school.
    6. [Therefore, I won’t be considered for that job (within the next two years).]
       
       • A → B
       • ~B
       • Three dots ~A

Question 2

Two Reasons to Add “Implicit” Premises or Conclusions to Your Argument Summaries (e.g. your summary of arguments in “standard form”)

Answer 2

• 1. Clarify what the author intended
• 2. Strengthen the argument
• Whatever implicit premises you add, these should generally follow the principle of charity and the principle of fidelity as much as possible
• Note that in choosing to add implicit premises, you are choosing to follow the principle of charity more than the principle of fidelity in one regard: namely, adding a premise not explicitly stated by the author

Question 3

Principle of Fidelity

Answer 3

• Your summary of someone else’s argument should stay as close to the author’s intentions (and explicit statements) as possible
• Ex: The woman in the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses and she doesn’t have a longnose.
• Greater “Fidelity” Summary:
  
  1. Witches have long noses
  2. She doesn’t have a long nose.
  3. Therefore, the woman in the hat is not a witch.

Question 4

Principle of Charity

Answer 4

• Your summary of someone else’s argument should treat the argument as being as strong an argument as possible
• Ex: The woman in the hat is not a witch since witches have long noses and she doesn’t have a longnose.
• Greater “Charity” Summary
  
  1. Witches have long noses.
  2. The woman in the hat doesn’t have a long nose.
  3. Therefore, the woman in the hat is not a witch.

Question 5

Categorical Statements (Evaluating deductive arguments continued)

Answer 5

• Statements that make claims about categories (for instance, about whether some category of things includes or partially overlaps with another category of things)
• Usually includes words like “some,” “all,” or “none”
• Ex:
  
  1. All dogs are mammals.
  2. Fido is a dog.
  3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
• Ex:
  
  1. No fish are mammals.
  2. Sonya is a fish.
  3. Therefore, Sonya is not a mammal.

-4 Kinds of Categorical Statements

Question 6

Categorical Inferences/Arguments

Answer 6

-Inferences or arguments that include categorical statements

• Ex:
  1. All dogs are mammals.
  2. Fido is a dog.
  3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
  
  • Valid
• Ex:
  1. No fish are mammals.
  2. Sonya is a fish.
  3. Therefore, Sonya is not a mammal.
  
  • Valid
• Ex:
  1. Some egg-layers are mammals.
  2. All mammals have lungs.
  3. Therefore, some egg-layers have lungs
  
  • Valid
• Ex:
  1. Some egg-layers are mammals.
  2. No mammals are fish.
  3. Therefore, some egg-layers are not fish.
  
  • Valid
• Ex:
  1. Some egg-layers are mammals.
  2. Some mammals are dogs.
  3. Therefore, some egg-layers are dogs.
  
  • Invalid
• Ex:
  1. No fish are mammals.
  2. All mammals are blind.
  3. Therefore, no fish are blind.
  
  • Invalid

Question 7

Four Kinds of Categorical Statements

Answer 7

• 1. Universal Affirmative
     - All dogs are mammals
     - All S is P
• 2. Universal Negative
     - No fish a mammal.
     - No S is P
• 3. Particular Affirmative
     - Some mammals lay eggs.
     - Some S is P
• 4. Particular Negative
     - Some fish don’t lay eggs.
     - Some S is not P

Question 8

Evaluating Inductive Inferences

Answer 8

-Focusing on the arrows (where the evaluation of inferences is focused)

Question 9

How to Evaluate the legitimacy of inferences for Deductive Arguments

Answer 9

• Probably don’t need to know
• An argument where the premises, if true, are intended to prove the conclusion with absolute certainty
• The standard = validity: it’s not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false
• Ex: Every dog is a mammal. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
• Validity is an “on-off” (or, pass-fail) notion: Arguments are completely valid, or completely invalid. No argument is “very valid.”

Question 10

How to Evaluate the legitimacy of inferences for Non-Deductive Arguments

Answer 10

• An argument where the premises, if true, are intended to provide some reason to believe the conclusion, but not establish the conclusion with absolute certainty
• The standard = strength: The premises, if true, would provide strong reason to believe the conclusion is true
• Ex: I’ve seen dozens of swans and every one has been white. Therefore, the next swan I see will probably be white.
• Strength is a “more or less” notion

Question 11

Some Common Types of Inductive Arguments

Answer 11

-1. Argument from a sample to a statistical generalization

• 2. Inference to the best explanation:
     - Argument from (i) some set of data/evidence and (ii) possible explanations of the data/evidence, to (iii) the best among the possible explanations
• 3. Arguments from analogy
     - Argument from the similarity of two items in some respects, to their similarity in another respect

-4. Argument from correlations to a causal claim

Question 12

Argument from a Sample to a Statistical Generalization

Answer 12

-One common type of inductive arguments

• Includes:
  
  • Population
  • Statistical generalization
  • Sample
  • Two conditions for this argument type
• Ex:
  1. 60% of the 5 randomly selected Democrats interviewed in this study answered “yes” to the question “Should Trump be impeached?”
  2. Therefore, 60% of registered Democrats support impeaching Trump.

Question 13

Population

Answer 13

-A set of things, however identified

• Examples of Populations:
  
  • UNLV undergraduates
  • Registered Democrats
  • All dogs
  • All mammals
  • The chairs in this room
  • Hydrogen atoms in the universe

Question 14

Statistical Generalization

Answer 14

-A claim that some percentage of a population of things has some characteristics (or characteristics)

• Examples of Statistical Generalizations:
  
  • 55% of registered Democrats support impeaching Trump
  • About ¼ of UNLV undergraduates play video games more than 3 hours/week
  • More than 80% of the chairs in this room deviate from the manufacturer specifications

Question 15

Argument from a Sample to a Statistical Generalization (and Sample)

Answer 15

• An argument that concludes to a statistical generalization on the basis of a claim about a sample
• Sample = a subset of a population
• Ex. of arguments from a sample to a statistical generalization
  
  1. 55% of the 1000 randomly selected Democrats interviewed in this study answered “yes” to the question “Should Trump be impeached?”
  2. Therefore, 55% of registered Democrats support impeaching Trump.
  3. 17 of the 20 chairs in this room that we examined deviated from manufacturer specifications.
  4. Therefore, more than 80% of the chairs in this room deviate from the manufacturer specifications

Question 16

Two Conditions for Arguments of This Type (Statistical Generalization) to be strong:

Answer 16

• 1. Adequate sample size
• 2. Unbiased sample
• Thus, also two strategies for developing inference-challenger objections [where applicable]
• Ex:
  
  1. 60% of the 5 randomly selected Democrats interviewed in this study answered “yes” to the question “Should Trump be impeached?”
  2. Therefore, 60% of registered Democrats support impeaching Trump.
     
     • Population = all registered democrats
     • Sample = 5 randomly selected democrats
     • Problem with sample size
  3. 17 of the 20 chairs in this room that students have complained about deviated from manufacturer specification.
  4. Therefore, more than 80% of the chairs in this room deviate from the manufacturer specifications.
     
     • Population = all chairs in this room
     • Sample = 20 chairs students have complained about
     • Biased sample

Question 17

Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)

Answer 17

-One common type of inductive arguments

• Arguments of this type involve the following steps:
  
  • Step 1: Some set of observed facts (or otherwise known or assumed facts)
  • Step 2: A proposed explanation of all (or most) of these facts
  • Step 3: A comparison between the explanation in Step 2 and other possible explanations that indicated that the Step 2 explanation is “best” (i.e. preferable to the others; superior to the others)
  • Step 4: Conclusion that the proposed explanation is true
• Note:
  
  • a. Sometimes these “steps” are presented in a different order
  • b. Sometimes each step is represented by multiple premises/conclusions
  • c. Sometimes one or more of these steps is “implicit” (not stated)
• Ex:
• The suspect’s fingerprints were found all over the knife that was thrust into the victim’s heart. Furthermore, the suspect was the only person other than the victim that had a key to the victim’s house, and the door was found unlocked. It is natural to conclude that the suspect is guilty of the murder with which he is charged.

-I believe that Napoleon Bonaparte really existed, because the great variety of documents that refer to him would be very hard to explain otherwise.

Question 18

Seven Virtues of an Explanation

Answer 18

• i.e. Good things for an explanation to have
• 1. Explanation
• 2. Depth
• 3. Power
• 4. Falsifiability
• 5. Modesty
• 6. Simplicity
• 7. Conservativeness

Question 19

Exploratoriness

Answer 19

-The explanation explains all (or most) of the available data

Question 20

Depth

Answer 20

-The explanation itself raises no (or few) additional questions

Question 21

Power

Answer 21

-The explanation applies in many similar situations

Question 22

Falsifiability

Answer 22

-It is possible that evidence that disconfirms the hypothesis will be found

Question 23

Modesty

Answer 23

-The explanation involves no (or few) claims about things we don’t know

Question 24

Simplicity

Answer 24

-The explanation involves fewer factors or events than competing explanations

Question 25

Conservativeness

Answer 25

-The explanation doesn’t require us to change other things we believe

Question 26

Arguments from Analogy

Answer 26

- Item A has features x, y, … z and item B has features x, y, … z. Item A also has feature q. Therefore, item B probably has feature q. - Ex: I used to own a Subaru and it was reliable. Therefore, this Subaru I’m thinking of buying now is probably reliable. - Ex: It’s clearly wrong to cause unnecessary pain to fellow humans. But animals can feel pain too. So it’s just as wrong to cause unnecessary pain to animals. - Note: In evaluating arguments from analogy, the main things to consider are: - (a) What are the known or likely relevant similarities, and (b) what are the known, likely, or possible relevant dissimilarities. Similarities and dissimilarities are relevant if they make a difference to the strength of the inference from premises to conclusion. - (b) → this is where you’ll be able to find possible inference-challenger objections?

Question 27

Causal Reasoning

Answer 27

- It is sometimes said that an event or factor A causesan event or factor B - Ex: The heat from the stove causes the water to boil. - Ex: Many fevers are caused by the body’s response to viral or bacterial infection. - The same idea can be expressed in many ways, not using the term “cause” - Ex: He was initially thrown into homelessness by an eviction from this primary residence. - Ex: The engine is what makes the car go.

Question 28

What is a cause?

Answer 28

- Proposed Answer: An event or factor A causes another event or factor B when A brings B about or A makes B happen - Note: Causes often depend on background conditions, which can themselves be construed as causes as well - Ex: The heat from the stove causes the water to boil. - Background conditions: the pot holding the water above the stove; the atmospheric pressure holding the water in the liquid form above the stove - Ex: He was initially thrown into homelessness by an eviction from his primary residence. - Background conditions: agencies that enforce eviction laws; not having another place to stay

Question 29

Causal Claim

Answer 29

- A claim that two events and/or factors Q and P (or two sets of events and/or factors Q and P; or two types of events and/or factors Q and P) are related such that Q causes P - Q: How can we evaluate the plausibility (likelihood to be true) of a causal claim? - Ex: - Running three miles in 26 minutes would make me short of breath. - Greater poverty in a society leads to greater crime in that society - Trump is being investigated by the House because he did something illegal - Trump is being investigated by the House because the Democrats are out to get him.

Question 30

Correlation

Answer 30

- A case where the variation between the value of two variables Q and P follows a simple pattern: - Positive Correlation = When the value of Q increases, the value of P increases; when the value of P decreases, the value of Q decreases - Negative Correlation = When the value of P increases, the value of Q decreases; when the value of P decreases, the value of Q decreases - Ex: - Based on data collected from previous semesters, the number of class sessions a student attends is positively correlated with their final grade in this course. - Positive correlation - The percentage of a state’s population that has been employed full-time for any part of the year is negatively correlated with the number of alleged crimes prosecuted in that state that year (per capita) - Negative correlation - Note: Correlation alone does not prove causation. When A and B are correlated, this could be for any of 4 reasons: 1. A causes B 2. B causes A 3. A and B are caused by a third event or factor C (spurious relationship) 4. A and B are only accidentally correlated - Ex: Based on data collected from previous semesters, the number of class sessions a student attends is positively correlated with their final grade in this course. - A causes B OR A and B and caused by a third event or factor C - Ex: The percentage of a state’s population that has been employed full-time for any part of the year is negatively correlated with the number of alleged crimes prosecuted in that state that year (per capita). - A causes B OR A and B and caused by a third event or factor C

Question 31

Fallacy

Answer 31

-A common type of mistake in reasoning, argument, or inference - Focus on recognizing the following fallacies (though there are many others): - 1. Begging the question (Circular reasoning) - 2. Equivocation - 3. Straw Man - 4. Ad Hominem - 5. Other fallacies of relevance - 6. Biased language (not necessarily a fallacy)

Question 32

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

Answer 32

- This fallacy involves assuming what the argument intends to (or needs to) prove. - One of the premises already makes the claim that is the intended conclusion of the argument - Ex: You want to know why this sandwich is bad? Because it’s bad, okay. It’s really bad. - 1. This sandwich is really bad. - 2. Therefore, this sandwich is bad. - Ex: A theist tries to convince an atheist to believe in God with the following argument: “The Bible tells us very clearly that there is a God. And we know that the Bible is trustworthy because God wrote it. So we should believe that there is a God. - 1. The Bible says that there’s a God. - 2. God wrote the Bible. - 3. Therefore, the Bible is trustworthy. (from 2) - 4. Therefore, there is a God. (from 1 and 3, jointly)

Question 33

Equivocation

Answer 33

-Involves using the same word multiple times in an argument, but with different meanings in different claims. This makes it seem like its conclusion is supported by the premises, but if the different meanings were distinguished, the argument wouldn’t work (or, the support would be much weaker than intended). - Ex: Cash is accepted as payment for food at Dennys. But Cash is a dead country singer. Therefore, a dead country singer is accepted as payment for food at Dennys. - 1. Cash is accepted as payment for food at Dennys. - 2. Cash is a dead country singer. - 3. Therefore, a dead country singer is accepted as payment for food at Dennys. - What term is being equivocate here? On which term does the equivocation turn? - CASH - Ex: Any law can be repealed by a legislative body. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by a legislative body. - 1. Any law can be repealed by a legislative body. - 2. The law of gravity is a law. - 3. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by a legislative body. - What term is being equivocate here? On which term does the equivocation turn? - LAW

Question 34

Straw Man

Answer 34

- This fallacy consists of representing an opponent’s views inaccurately, attacking the inaccurate version, and then acting as if the opponent’s views had been refuted. - The inaccurate version of the opponent’s views is called the “straw man” - Ex: Members of the NRA want a pistol in the hand of every five year old and a shoot-out on every street corner. That’s insane! We as a society should absolutely reject the position and suggestions of the NRA. - What is the “straw man” in the argument? - Members of the NRA want a pistol in the hand of every five year old and a shoot-out on every street corner. Ex: Bernie Sanders wants to turn every part of society over the control of the federal government. He wants the government to decide all healthcare issues rather than doctors and patients. These policies would have disastrous effects. Therefore, no one should support Sanders for president. - What is the “straw man” in the argument? - Bernie Sanders wants to turn every part of society over the control of the federal government. He wants the government to decide all healthcare issues rather than doctors and patients.

Question 35

Ad Hominem (“to the man”)

Answer 35

- This fallacy consists in not addressing an opponent’s stated position or reasons and redirecting attention to personal features of the opponent that seem to disqualify the positive or reasons from being considered (but don’t actually constitute an objection to them) - Ex: Mr. Limbaugh has said that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. But Mr. Limbaugh has himself has been divorced three times. So we don’t have to pay much attention to that! - Ex: The study indicated that the link between smoking and lung cancer is less strong than has previously been claimed. But the study was paid for by the tobacco industry, so we shouldn’t put much stock in that result.

Question 36

Other “Fallacies of Relevance”

Answer 36

-This is a large set of fallacies that consists in directing attention to things that don’t actually matter for the evaluation of the goodness (soundness or cogency) of an argument. - Appeal to Irrelevant Authority: - A person with authority or credentials in one area is cited as a source for claims about another area. - Genetic Fallacy: - The bad origins of an idea, policy, or argument are taken as a reason to reject the idea, policy, or argument

Question 37

Biased Language

Answer 37

- Sometimes language used in the premises of an argument skews the description of the facts in a way that favors the argument’s conclusions against competing views. - For biased language to be a problem with an argument, there has to be available some more neutral, less question-begging way of stating the premises that would be more likely to be agreed-to by an opponent of the argument - Note: Biased language can be construed as a kind of “begging the question” - Ex: Abortion is the brutal stripping of life from a completely innocent human being. Such brutal acts are condemned everywhere else we find them. We should condemn it here too. - Biased language? - ”the brutal stripping of life from a completely innocent human being”; “brutal acts” - Can you think of a way to rephrase the argument so that it doesn’t include the biased language? - Abortion ends the life of an innocent human being. Acts that end the life of an innocent human being are condemned in every other case. We should condemn it here too. - Ex: Those trigger-happy maniacs at the NRA want even semi-automatic weapons to be legal. Such weapons are hardly useful at all for hunting or self-defense. I propose they should be banned entirely. - Biased language? - ”trigger-happy maniacs at the NRA” - Can you think of a way to rephrase the argument so that it doesn’t include the biased language? - The official position of the NRA is that even semi-automatic weapons to be legal. Such weapons are hardly useful at all for hunting or self-defense. I propose they should be banned entirely. - What other fallacy that we mentioned does this argument exhibit? - Ad Hominem

Question 38

Arguments in the Wild

Answer 38

- Real arguments as made by real people in, for example, letters to the editor, Twitter posts, YouTube videos, academic books and articles, etc. - Passages that contain arguments often include many things besides premises and conclusions. Only premises and conclusions (whether explicit or implicit) are actually parts of the argument, but other things may be relevant to the interpretation of the argument.

Question 39

Types of Claims Often Found in Real Passages Containing Arguments

Answer 39

- 1. Background information/context - 2. Reports of what others say or believe (reports of others’ claims and arguments) - 3. Concessions to opposing views - 4. Jokes, anecdotes, entertainment - 5. Framing, order of presentation, style (particularly important to notice where this affects how arguments are perceived) - 6. Others? - Premises, conclusion (whether implicit or explicit)

Question 40

Examples of Arguments in the Wild

Answer 40

- P = Premises - Imp. P:.. = Implicit Premises - BI = Background Information - REP = Reports of what others say or believe (reports of others’ claims and arguments) - CON = Concessions to opposing views - JK = Jokes, anecdotes, entertainment - C = Conclusion - Imp. C:.. = Implicit Conclusions - Also, note if there is anything about the framing, order of presentation, or style, that may affect how the arguments are perceived. - (BI/CON) Bullfighting has a long tradition in Spain, but (P) it is out of tune with modern thinking and (BI/P) campaigners there are fighting to get it banned. (BI) It is also legal France, Portugal, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador. (REP/CON) Though some see it as a beautiful and noble sport, most people now regard it as a barbaric activity (REP/C) which should be. 1. Bullfighting is out of tune with modern thinking. 2. Campaigners are fighting to get bullfighting banned. 3. Most people today regard bullfighting as a barbaric activity. 4. Therefore, bullfighting should be banned. - Other Argument: 1. Bullfighting has a long tradition in Spain. 2. Bullfighting is legal in many countries. 3. Some see bullfighting as a beautiful and noble sport. 4. Therefore, bullfighting should not be banned. - (P) the appalling mortality rate from polio in the past, (BI/REP [C]) some parents choose not to have their children vaccinated against it, because (REP [P]) they think there is now only a low risk that their children will become infected with disease. Moreover, (REP [P]) some believe that there is a more than negligible risk that the vaccine will have harmful side-effects. (CON) In their eyes, a decision to avoid vaccination may appear entirely rational. But (P) what they do not realize is that if a substantial percentage of a population is not vaccinated against polio, there will be regular outbreaks of the disease every few years as the number of non-immune people increases. [Imp. C: Parents should vaccinate their children against polio] 1. There has been an appalling mortality rate from polio in the past. 2. If a substantial percentage of a population is not vaccinated against polio, there will be regular outbreaks of the disease every few years as the number of non-immune people increases. 3. [Therefore, parents should vaccinate their children against polio.] - Argument #2 (reported) 1. There is now only a low risk that my child will become infected with polio. 2. There is a more than negligible risk that the polio vaccine will harmful side-effects. 3. Therefore, I should not vaccinate my child against polio.