Logic Test 1

Front 1

Argument

Premise

Conclusion

Back 1

A sequence of statements which try to provide sufficient reason to believe the others

Supporting statements

Statements supported by premises

Front 2

Premise leaders

Back 2

Words like "because" "since" and "for"- they indicate premises that provide reasoning behind the conclusion that is presented

Front 3

Conclusion leaders

Back 3

Words like "so," "therefore," "thus," "hence,"- they indicate the conclusion that is being supported by the premises

Front 4

Passages that are NOT arguments

Back 4

Conditionals- "then" statements. If Bob has a temp, then he is sick. Suppose..

Temporal Sequences- since (the time that) Marilyn monroe died, men have walked on the moon

Explanations- The missing plane crashed because an instrument malfunctioned. Not giving proof, just giving a cause or reason. Using "as a result of" or "due to". Can use "probably"

Recommendations and Rhetorical Q

Front 5

Simple argument

Complex argument

Back 5

One conclusion drawn from multiple premises

Multiple conclusions from multiple premises

Front 6

Sound argument

Back 6

Arguments that verify their conclusion

Complex arguments are only sound if all its simple arguments are sound

Front 7

Conditions to be a Sound Argument

Back 7

1. Premises must be true and justified

2. The conclusion must follow the premises

3. Conclusion must not be assumed by the premises

Front 8

Fallacious

Back 8

Arguments that are not sound, do not verify their conclusion

Front 9

Non starter

Back 9

An argument with a false or unjustified premise

Front 10

Non sequitur

Back 10

An argument whose conclusion does not follow, even with probability. An invalid argument

Front 11

Question begging argument

Back 11

An argument whose conclusion is assumed by one or more of the premises from which the conclusion is drawn

Front 12

Argument strength

Statement strength

Back 12

The degree to which the premises support the conclusion. The first ball is red, for all balls in the urn are red. Extremely strong, no uncertainty (compared with 90% and 10%).

The strength of the argument depends on the strength of the statement. The strength of the argument is inversely related to the strength of its conclusion.

Front 13

Modality

Back 13

To what extent is this statement true.

Necessity--> actuality--> possibility

Necessity (must)--> certainty (is bound to)--> probability (should)--> possibility (may/can)

Front 14

Ductively sound argument

Back 14

conclusion follows with necessity

Front 15

Inductively sound argument

Back 15

Sound argument where the conclusion follows with probability, not necessity

Front 16

Validity

Back 16

The requirement that the conclusions follows from the premises (at least with probability)

Valid arguments may have FALSE PREMISES, but the conclusion must follow

Sound arguments have TRUE premises, and the conclusion must follow

Question begging arguments are always VALID

Front 17

Formally valid

Back 17

deductively valid arguments

Front 18

Fallacy of Equivocation

Back 18

Word, phrase or sentence that has more than one meaning- ambiguous. Argument is invalid/fallacious if the word is used twice with a different meaning each time

Front 19

Arguments from Ignorance

Back 19

Non sequitur. Arguing something is true because there is no proof that it is false. or vice versa

Front 20

Ad hominem argument

Back 20

the premises describe someone's personal characteristics, from which the conclusion is drawn that his opinions or reasoning about matters unrelated to himself are fallacious

Front 21

Baising influences

Back 21

Slander. characteristics of the speaker and setting, appeals to pity or emotions, poisoning the well

Front 22

Argument from authority

Back 22

Argument from a source. Never deductively valid. Proposition can always be false.

the source must have affirmed what he believes

and the source's belief must be based on careful observation - sober, lucid, free

no equally reliable sources denies the idea

Front 23

Argument from Analogy

Back 23

data and inference group

1. degree of similarity between d and i

2. relevance of the similarities between d and i to A

3. the number of objects in d and i

4. the variety of the data group

Front 24

Enumerative induction

Back 24

making conclusions from a small sample group about a population

Front 25

Fallacy of exclusion

Back 25

the fallacy committed when the premises of an argument exclude undermining counter evidence

to be VALID there must be NO undermining counterevdience

Front 26

Undermining counterevidence

Back 26

supports the falsity of a conclusion to such an extent that the conclusion is not probable even if the premises are true

A deductively valid argument can NOT have undermining counter evidence

does NOT show that the conclusion is impossible/probable just that it is not probable