AU Philosophy 252 Phil 252 Critical Thinking - Final Exam Review 2024 Athabasca University, Exams of Philosophy

Download AU Philosophy 252 Phil 252 Critical Thinking - Final Exam Review 2024 Athabasca University and more Exams Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! 1 AU Philosophy 252 Phil 252 Critical Thinking - Final Exam Review 2024 Athabasca University Argument - --A group of statements that consists of reasons put forward in support of an opinion. Premise - --The reasons given in support of the opinion. ex. my vehicle keeps pulling to the left. Conclusion - --The position supported. ex. the wheels of my car are out of alignment. Criticism - --Testing the idea or explanation with the attitude that if it's a good idea, then it should stand up to examination and accomplish what it sets out to do. Ask questions such as: does the argument establish its conclusion, does the conclusion follows from the premise, would the idea solve a certain problem, does the explanation aid our understanding? If yes, the subject can be accepted. If no, the subject must be modified or rejected (in whole or in part) The Critical Approach - --Step 1: read the passage, determine the topic, determine the conclusion. Step 2: identify arguments or theories. Step 3: analyze arguments or theories. Step 4: evaluate each argument and theory, and the passage as a whole. Step 1: Specifying Topic and Main Points - --the main point of an argumentative passage is the author's conclusion. first few paragraphs, title. topic should not state main points or conclusion. Step 2: Identifying Arguments - --Indicator words: because, therefore, hence, since, it follows that, etc. Description - --the author is attempting to state what has happened, or what is the case, or what something is like. Diatribe - --a bitter and violent criticism or invective. Explanation - --answers to certain kinds of why and how questions. why or how something is already known (or thought to be known ) to happen or to be the case happens or is the case. typically an unusual event. Step 3: Analyzing Arguments - --distinguish the parts or elements of a whole, and specify their relations to one another. distinguishing all premises and conclusions. indicating which conclusions are arrived at on the basis of which premises. 2 DO NOT consider your opinion on the author's position. Premise Indicators - --because, since, on the grounds that, considering that, for, for the reason that, inasmuch as, etc. Conclusion Indicators - --therefore, so, it follows that, this implies that, hence, thus, we may infer that, we may conclude that, consequently, etc. Applying the Critical Approach - --your arguments your opponent's objections to your arguments your replies to your opponent's objections your opponent's arguments for a conflicting conclusion your replies to your opponent's arguments Applying Step 1 - --state the topic and main points in an introduction. (thesis statement) give a general indication of the nature of your arguments. Applying Step 2 - --use Indicator words to separate arguments. Applying Step 3 - --make it clear when you are starting an argument that you're opponent might make, and when you are replying to that argument. Leaving it to the Experts: the Dilemma - --who are the experts? what if the experts disagree? how can we control the influence of experts? without relying on experts, we will most likely be wrong. Relativism - --true for me or true for you. The Dogmatism of the "True Believer" - --wants a firm doctrine, does not find it through ordinary rational process, turns instead to an embracing doctrine that explains anything and everything. true believer is blind to any weakness in it. Coping with the Dilemma - --developing opinions without acting on them. developing you own opinions without shutting out the opinions of others. Diagramming Arguments - --bracketing and labeling premises and conclusions, and underlining Indicator words. arrows from premises to conclusions. work backwards from the main conclusion. Affirming the Antecedent - --if A then B A therefore B Affirming the Consequent (Fallacy) - --if A then B B therefore A Denying the Consequent - --if A then B 5 False Dilemma - --false premise with an either or choice. Slippery Slope - --one of the if then premises is doubtful. if it is done, something else will happen or is likely to happen as a result, and if so, something else, and something else, etc... Straw Man - --making your own position appear strong by making the opposite position appear weaker than it actually is. premise 1 will inaccurately describe the opponent's position. premise 2 must either support this untenable position or support the position taken by the speaker. Resemblance Fallacies - --affirming the Consequent denying the Antecedent equivocation begging the question Circular Reasoning - --restate the conclusion in the same or different words as the premises. Emotion Fallacies - --appeal to force appeal to pity prejudicial language Appeal to Force - --if people get you to agree because they will hurt you if you don't agree. Appeal to Pity - --if people get you to agree to something because they will be hurt if you don't agree. Prejudicial Language - --advance a bad argument when the prejudicial expression makes a false implication. Emotion and Resemblance Combined - --Appeal to authority attacking the person Appeal to Authority - --appealing to someone whose expertise is not relevant to the issue at hand, or appealing to someone who is famous or admired, but not an expert on the issue at hand. Attacking the Person - --arguing that a person's point of view should be doubted because the person has something to gain by being believed. Nondeductive Arguments - --cannot provide us with certainty. Inductive Generalizations - --arguments that proceed from facts or purported facts about individuals to a general statement about all, most, or a certain percentage of individuals of that type. draw conclusions about what will happen in the future on the basis of what has happened in the past. Statistical Syllogisms - --arguments that draw the conclusion that an individual of a certain sort is likely to have a certain property because most individuals of that sort have the same property. Casual Arguments - --attempts to establish that one thing causes another. Arguments of Analogy - --conclude that a certain thing has a certain property because something else, to which it is similar, has that property. Convergent Arguments - --draw a conclusion on the basis of two or more independent premises, each of which is supposed to give some support. 6 Inductive Argument - --particular to general premise states a particular observation, while the more general conclusion goes beyond what is observed. past to anytime argument pattern moves from evidence about the past to a conclusion that applies not only to the past, but also to the future. Argument from Statistical Premises - --general to particular argument applies this generalization to a particular person or situation and reaches a conclusion about it. Attacking the Premises - --disputing the data showing that the evidence used as a bias for the generalization does not really exist or has been misinterpreted. Questioning the Representativeness of the Sample - --premise is generalized to a larger population in the conclusion. the conclusion is not supported if the sample is not representative of the larger population. Pointing to a Shift in the Unit of Analysis - --the results of well constructed sampling can be misused in a sampling argument if the premise and the conclusion are statements about different kinds of things. Challenging the Truth of the Conclusion - --show that the alleged regularity described by the generalization does not exist. Criticisms of Arguments with Statistical Premises - --calling premises into doubt indicating that a sequence of premises dilutes the likelihood of the conclusion showing that the argument does not use all the available relevant evidence Empirical Theories - --explain why something is the case make predictions theories used as a premise in an argument theories used to explain a pattern of behavior Identifying Theories - --look for statements that explain why regularities occur. indicator words: why, because, explains, accounts for, etc... typically have a broader scope than that which they explain, many regularities can be explained by the same theory. are more remote from direct evidence than the events or processes they can be used to explain. commonly use specialized or technical language. Evaluation of Theories - --there is a plausible alternative theory the theory makes doubtful predictions defense against doubtful predictions is ad hoc the theory is unstable Regularity - --a pattern of behavior that is explained by a theory Observed Data - --the specific instances that form the basis for determining that a regularity occurs Explanation - --an attempt to indicate why or how something occurred, rather than to justify our 7 belief that it did. Ad Hoc Defense - --an attempt to save a theory being criticized by modifying it just in order to avoid damaging counter evidence. Testability Criticism - --pointing out that there is no procedure for determining whether predictions made by the theory do in fact occur.