Ctaea: Ch. 7 - Forms Of Reasoning

Front 1

reasoning:

Back 1

thought process that leads to a conclusion and the presentation of support for a claim in an argument (generally found in major premise, evidence found in minor premise)

Front 2

deductive reasoning:

Back 2

draws a conclusion that is already known from info in the premises.

Front 3

inductive reasoning:

Back 3

draws a conclusion that is NOT known from info. in the premises.

Front 4

reasoning by example:

Back 4

inferring a conclusion from specific cases, inference may be drawn from one case, but stronger arguments draw from multiple examples. (warrant, grounds, claim)

Front 5

requirements for sound reasoning by example:

Back 5

1. example must be relevant
2. there must be a reasonable number of examples.
3. use typical examples that are representative of group under consideration
4. examples must cover an appropriate period of time
5. contradictory examples must be unimportant.

Front 6

reasoning by analogy:

Back 6

makes a comparison between 2 similar cases and infers that what is known about one is also true of the other. (warrant, grounds, claim)

Front 7

2 forms of analogies:

Back 7

literal analogies: compare cases that belong in the same classification
figurative analogies: compare cases in different classification

Front 8

requirements for reasoning by analogy:

Back 8

1. must be significant points of similarity among the items being compared
2. the points of similarity must be important to the comparison
3. differences must be unimportant to the comparison being made
4. only literal analogies should be used as logical proof

Front 9

casual reasoning:

Back 9

argues that one thing or event in the past caused another thing or event to happen, or will cause something to happen in the future, or an action taken in the future will cause a particular outcome. (claim, grounds, warrant)

Front 10

requirements for casual reasoning:

Back 10

1. alleged case must be relevant to the effect described
2. cause must be capable of producing the effect.
3. cause(s) cited must be the sole or distinguishing casual factor
4. cause(s) cited must be necessary and sufficient

Front 11

3 basic ways to have correlation without a strong indication of casualty

Back 11

1. coincidence.
2. event cited as cause maybe so common that it could be seen as a cause of almost anything
3. two events that are highly correlated ay have a common cause, so one event doesn't cause another, but they are both caused by a third event.

Front 12

sign reasoning:

Back 12

argues that 2 variables are so strongly related to each other that the presence or absence of one may be taken as an indication of the presence of absence of the other.

Front 13

requirements of sign reasoning:

Back 13

1. alleged sign must be relevant and to the conclusion
2. relationship between the sign and the subject must be inherent
3. sign reasoning should be cumulative
4. there should NOT be a counterfactor to disrupt the relationship

Front 14

reasoning by criteria:

Back 14

deductive reasoning that happens when an arguer applies pre-existing standards to a subject and makes a judgment based on how well the subject fits the criteria

Front 15

requirements for reasoning by criteria:

Back 15

1. criteria must be adequately established
2. the criteria are best available
3. subject of the argument must meet the criteria