Download Critical Thinking: Propositions, Arguments, and Fallacies and more Exams Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity!
D265 Critical Thinking (STUDY THIS ONE!) PROPOSITIONS - Are statements that can be true or false NON-PROPOSITONS - Are sentences that are not statements about matters of fact or fiction. They do not make a claim that can be true or false. SIMPLE PROPOSITIONS - Have no internal logic structure, meaning whether they are true or false does not depend on whether a part of them is true or false. They are simply true or false on their own. (Example: Harry Potter wears glasses. The sky is blue.) COMPLEX PROPOSITIONS - Have internal logic structure, meaning they are composed of simple propositions. Whether they are true or false depends on whether their parts are true or false. (Example: The sky is blue, but it does not look blue to me right now. The cat ate the food, but he did not like it. The GDP of Canada is either $3 trillion or $12 trillion.) CONCLUSION INDICATORS - THEREORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT, AS A RESULT, THUS, & CONSEQUENTLY. Acronym to remember: ACT IT As a result Consequently Therefore It follows that Thus
PREMISE INDICATORS - BECAUSE, FOR, GIVEN THAT, AS, SINCE, AS
INDICATED BY & WHEREAS.
Acronym to remember: FAB SWAG For As Because Since Whereas As indicated by Given that DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS - Arguments where the premises guarantee or necessitate the conclusion. -mathematical arguments, logical arguments, arguments from definition. INDUCTION ARGUMENTS - Arguments where the premises make the conclusion probable. -analogies, authority, causal inferences, extrapolations, etc. INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION OR ABDUCTION - Arguments where the best available explanation is chosen as the correct explanation. FORMAL FALLACY - Concerns the structure of an argument INFORMAL FALLACY - Concerns the informational content of an argument
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy ( Fallacy of Presumption) - Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. EX: One example of the burden of proof fallacy is someone who claims that ghosts exists, but doesn't prove this, and instead shifts the burden of proof to others, by stating that anyone who disagrees should prove ghosts don't exist. Confirmation bias - Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses. Confirmation bias happens when a person gives more weight to evidence that confirms their beliefs and undervalues evidence that could disprove it. Anchoring / Adjustment bias - Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic. When we are setting plans or making estimates about something, we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor, instead of seeing it objectively. selection bias - A polling error in which the sample is not representative of the population being studied, so that some opinions are over- or underrepresented sound argument - Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true. valid argument - A valid argument is an argument in which the conclusion must be true whenever the hypotheses are true. EX: "It rains only if I carry an umbrella" can be rewritten as "If it rains, then I carry an umbrella." "All citizens of Egypt speak Arabic." can be rewritten as "If someone is a citizen of Egypt, then they speak Arabic." unsound argument - An unsound argument is either an invalid argument or a valid argument with at least one false premise. EX: All dogs are
mammals. Therefore, dogs are cows. The above argument contains true premises, but it is invalid since the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. Therefore, it is also an unsound argument. strong argument - A strong argument is a non-deductive argument that succeeds in providing probable, but not conclusive, logical support for its conclusion. cogent argument - A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is both strong and all of its premises are true. uncogent argument - An uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one false premise. Denying the Antecedent - If A then B Not A Therefore, not B = INVALID Example: If I'm in Rome (A), Then I'm in Italy (B). I'm not in in Rome (A). Therefore I am not in Italy (B). =INVALID Affirming the Consequent - is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the converse form would be true as well. Formally, we can represent this fallacy as follows: If X is the case, then Y is also the case. Y is true, so X must be true as well. cognitive bias - When our brains take a quick way of making decisions or understanding things, but that quick way can lead to errors in judgment.
straw man fallacy (Fallacy of Relevance) - misinterprets someone else's argument or position. Red Herring (Fallacy of Relevance) - something that draws attention away from the main issue Irrelevant Appeals - attemptterm-46 to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand Appeal to Force (Fallacy of Relevance) - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument. ( Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Fallacy of Relevance) - Relies on the opinions of people who have no expertise, training, or knowledge relevant to the issue at hand. Ad Populum/ Bandwagon (Fallacy of Relevance) - This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to "everybody's doing it, so it must be a good thing to do." (joining the Empire) Appeal to Consequences (Fallacy of Relevance) - attempt to motivate belief with either the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving (join the dark side we have cookies) Equivocation (Fallacy of Relevance) - When a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an argument. (moon= moon or moon= death-star) Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy of Weak Induction) - Arguing that a lack of evidence proves something Texas Sharpshooter (Fallacy of Weak Induction) - Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.
False Dilemma/ Black and White /False dichotomy Fallacy (Fallacy of Presumption) - debate only has two solutions; "you are either with me or against me" - Anakin Skywalker Basic Concepts - 1 We can go now, because 2 The car is packed. Indirect Support - 1 I know that Voodoo is real, because 2 My cousin saw someone take on the characteristics, personality, and voice of a spirit during a ceremony. 3 My cousin told me that she saw this last week. Mapping Independent Support - (1) This test is easy. (2) Linda got an A on the test and (3) Maise got an A on the test and (4) Francisco got an A on the test. Mapping Conjoint Support - (1) You are behaving unfairly. (2) You are giving more to some than to others and (3) giving more to some than to others is not fair. Conjoint Example - (1) Government mandates for zero-emission vehicles won't work because (2) only electric cars qualify as zero-emission vehicles, and (3) electric cars won't sell. (4) They are too expensive, (5) their range of operation is too limited, and (6) recharging facilities are not generally available.
Example: If I'm in Rome (A), then I'm in Italy (B). I am not in Rome in Italy (B). Therefore, I am not in Rome (A). Credibility of an Information Source - one that is written by someone who is an expert in their discipline and is free of errors and bias. First, ask yourself what the argument is intending to do?
- Is the argument intending to prove that the conclusion must be necessarily true, 100% of the time? If so, it would be a .... - Deductive argument. Is the argument intending to prove that the conclusion is likely or probably true? If so, it would be an - Inductive argument For deductive arguments: First, identify what the conclusion is and what the premises are. ASK: - IF premise one was true, and IF premise two was true, would the conclusion HAVE to be true? If the answer is "yes," then the argument is valid. If the answer is "no," then the argument is invalid. For inductive arguments: First, identify what the conclusion is and what the premises are. ASK: - IF premise one was true, and IF premise two was true, is the conclusion LIKELY to be true? If the answer is "yes," then the argument is strong. If the answer is "no," then the argument is weak. It doesn't matter how "silly" my argument is... at this point you are not concerned with the content/words, but with the form/structure. For deductive arguments, ASK: IS premise one and premise two actually true? - If the answer is "yes," then the argument is sound. If the answer is "no," then the argument is unsound.
you will focus on the content (words) of the argument. To do this, add the word "is" to each premise. For inductive arguments, ASK: IS premise one and premise two actually true? - If the answer is "yes," then the argument is cogent. If the answer is "no," then the argument is uncogent. Arguments about the future tense tend to be _________ arguments. - Inductive If/Then statements, also known as "conditional arguments" or hypothetical syllogisms are always almost ______________ arguments. - Deductive If an argument is invalid, then it is also _________. - Unsound If an argument is weak, then it is also _________. - Uncogent
