argument analysis
DESCRIPTION
Argument Analysis. Truth-Table Test for Validity. Example. Consider the argument (P & ~Q) ├ (Q → P). Premise: (P & ~Q) Conclusion: (Q → P) . Write Down ALL the Possibilities. Write Down Premises. Write Down Conclusion. Write Down Truth-Table for Premise. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Argument Analysis
![Page 2: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Truth-Table Test for Validity
![Page 3: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Example
Consider the argument (P & ~Q) (Q → P).├
Premise: (P & ~Q)Conclusion: (Q → P)
![Page 4: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Write Down ALL the PossibilitiesP QT TT FF TF F
![Page 5: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Write Down PremisesP Q (P & ~Q)T TT FF TF F
![Page 6: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Write Down ConclusionP Q (P & ~Q) (Q → P)T TT FF TF F
![Page 7: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Write Down Truth-Table for PremiseP Q (P & ~Q) (Q → P)T T FT F TF T FF F F
![Page 8: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Write Down Truth-Table for Conclusion
P Q (P & ~Q) (Q → P)T T F TT F T TF T F FF F F T
![Page 9: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Find ALL the Lines Where ANY Premise is F
P Q (P & ~Q) (Q → P)T T F TT F T TF T F FF F F T
![Page 10: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Ignore Them!P Q (P & ~Q) (Q → P)T T F TT F T TF T F FF F F T
![Page 11: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Now Make Sure There Are Only T’sP Q (P & ~Q) (Q → P)T T F TT F T TF T F FF F F T
![Page 12: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Multiple Premises
Sometimes arguments have multiple premises, like: (P v Q), ~P Q├
Premise: (P v Q)Premise: ~PConclusion: Q
![Page 13: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Write Down ALL the PossibilitiesP QT TT FF TF F
![Page 14: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Write Down the Premises and Conclusion
P Q (P v Q) ~P QT TT FF TF F
![Page 15: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Write Down Truth-TablesP Q (P v Q) ~P QT T T F TT F T F FF T T T TF F F T F
![Page 16: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Find ALL Lines Where ANY Premise Is F
P Q (P v Q) ~P QT T T F TT F T F FF T T T TF F F T F
![Page 17: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Ignore Them!P Q (P v Q) ~P QT T T F TT F T F FF T T T TF F F T F
![Page 18: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Make Sure You Only Have T’sP Q (P v Q) ~P QT T T F TT F T F FF T T T TF F F T F
![Page 19: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Failing the Test
Not all arguments pass the test. This argument is called “affirming the consequent”: (P → Q), Q P├
Premise: (P → Q)Premise: QConclusion: P
![Page 20: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Make ChartP Q (P → Q) Q PT T T T TT F F F TF T T T FF F T F F
![Page 21: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Find False PremisesP Q (P → Q) Q PT T T T TT F F F TF T T T FF F T F F
![Page 22: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Make Sure You Have All T’sP Q (P → Q) Q PT T T T TT F F F TF T T T FF F T F F
![Page 23: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Failing the TestWhenever an argument form fails the truth-table test for validity, then some arguments with that form are invalid.
P = There is no food in Hong Kong.Q = Michael will move out of the country
![Page 24: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Failing the TestWhenever an argument form fails the truth-table test for validity, then some arguments with that form are invalid.
Premise: If there is no food in Hong Kong, then Michael will move out of the country.Premise: Michael moved out of the country.Conclusion: There is no food in Hong Kong.
![Page 25: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Failing the TestHowever, not every argument of this form is invalid.
P = One person is happy.Q = Two people are happy.
![Page 26: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Failing the TestHowever, not every argument of this form is invalid.
Premise: If one person is happy, then two people are happy.Premise: Two people are happy.Conclusion: One person is happy.
![Page 27: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
TautologiesSome arguments/ argument forms have no premises.
If an argument with no premises is valid, then we call the conclusion a tautology.
Example: (P v ~P)├Premise: Conclusion: (P v ~P)
![Page 28: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Tautology
P (P v ~P)T TF T
![Page 29: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Contradiction
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction. Its truth-table is always false.
![Page 30: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Contradiction
P (P & ~ P)T T F F TF F F T F
![Page 31: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Interesting CaseP Q (P & ~P) QT TT FF TF F
![Page 32: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Interesting CaseP Q (P & ~P) QT T F TT F F FF T F TF F F F
![Page 33: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Ignore Them All?P Q (P & ~P) QT T F TT F F FF T F TF F F F
![Page 34: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Yes!P Q (P & ~P) QT T F TT F F FF T F TF F F F
![Page 35: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Interesting Case
Since there are no F’s on the table, the argument is valid.
Every argument with a contradictory premise is valid (though none are sound).
Every argument with a tautology for a conclusion is valid.
![Page 36: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
The Deduction TheoremWhenever P Q is valid, (P → Q) is valid (and vice versa). ├ ├
If you really want, you can avoid the truth-table test for validity.• If you need to figure out if φ ├ ψ is valid, just write a truth table for
(φ → ψ).• If you need to figure out if φ, χ ├ ψ is valid, just write a truth table for
(φ → (χ → ψ))• If your conditionals are tautologies, you know the argument’s valid.
![Page 37: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Earlier We Found:P Q (P v Q) ~P QT T T F TT F T F FF T T T TF F F T F
![Page 38: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
P Q ((P v Q) → (~ Q → P))T TT FF TF F
![Page 39: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
P Q ((P v Q) → (~ Q → P))T T T T T TT F T F F TF T F T T FF F F F F F
![Page 40: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
P Q ((P v Q) → (~ Q → P))T T T T F T TT F T F T F TF T F T F T FF F F F T F F
![Page 41: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
P Q ((P v Q) → (~ Q → P))T T T T F T T TT F T F T F T TF T F T F T T FF F F F T F F F
![Page 42: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
P Q ((P v Q) → (~ Q → P))T T T T T F T T TT F T T F T F T TF T F T T F T T FF F F F F T F F F
![Page 43: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
P Q ((P v Q) → (~ Q → P))T T T T T T F T T TT F T T F T T F T TF T F T T T F T T FF F F F F T T F F F
![Page 44: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Argument Analysis
![Page 45: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Premise vs. Conclusion
Real-world arguments are not like logic arguments. They almost never tell you which sentence is the conclusion of the argument. You’re left to figure that out yourself.
![Page 46: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Conclusion Discourse Markers
• Thus• So• Therefore• Hence• Consequently
![Page 47: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Premise Discourse Markers
• Since• Because• For• [colon] :
![Page 48: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Identifying the Conclusion
Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money
![Page 49: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Identifying the Conclusion
Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money
Conflict
![Page 50: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Thus
The English word ‘thus’ has two meanings: it can either mean the same thing as ‘therefore’– and in this sense it indicates a conclusion.
But it can also mean ‘in this way’ or ‘by doing this.’ That’s what it means in this passage.
![Page 51: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Identifying the Conclusion
Premise: Companies can reduce their payroll expenses and save money by making the workplace safer.Conclusion: It makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer.
![Page 52: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Argument Analysis: Example 2
This past winter, 200 students from Lingnan University traveled to the legislative council building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various university programs. The other 4,000 Lingnan students evidently weren’t so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of university students than are the protesters. Therefore the legislative council need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.
![Page 53: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Locating Discourse Markers
This past winter, 200 students from Lingnan University traveled to the legislative council building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various university programs. The other 4,000 Lingnan students evidently weren’t so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of university students than are the protesters. Therefore the legislative council need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.
![Page 54: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
SoThe English word ‘so’ has two meanings. Sometimes it means the same thing as ‘therefore.’
Other times ‘so’ means something like ‘as’ or ‘in the same way’ or ‘to the same degree.’
The other 4,000 students weren’t so concerned about their education = they weren’t as concerned as the protesters about their education.
![Page 55: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Argument 1
Premise: 4,000 Lingnan students either stayed on campus or left for winter break instead of protesting. Conclusion: These students did not share the protester’s worries.
![Page 56: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Argument 2
Premise: The group who did not protest is far more numerous. Conclusion: That group’s opinions are more representative of university students than are the protesters.
![Page 57: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Argument 3
Premise: The 4,000 Lingnan students who either stayed on campus or left for winter break instead of protesting do not share the protester’s worries.Premise: That group’s opinions are more representative of university students than are the protesters. Conclusion: The legislative council need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.
![Page 58: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
4000 did not attend protests.
4000 disagree with protesters.
Non-protesters are more numerous.
Non-protesters are more representative
LegCo can ignore protesters.
![Page 59: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Hidden Assumptions
![Page 60: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Hidden Assumptions
Most arguments are not deductively valid as stated. Sometimes they are inductively valid, but other times they omit premises that the writer or speaker expects you to fill in.
![Page 61: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Argument 1
Premise: 4,000 Lingnan students either stayed on campus or left for winter break instead of protesting. Conclusion: These students did not share the protester’s worries.
![Page 62: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Argument 1
Premise: 4,000 Lingnan students either stayed on campus or left for winter break instead of protesting. Hidden Premise: If students don’t attend a protest, then they do not share the worries or values of the protesters.Conclusion: These students did not share the protester’s worries.
![Page 63: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Argument 2
Premise: The group who did not protest is far more numerous. Conclusion: That group’s opinions are more representative of university students than are the protesters.
![Page 64: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Argument 2
Premise: The group who did not protest is far more numerous. Hidden Premise: A larger group of university students is more representative of student opinions than a smaller group.Conclusion: That group’s opinions are more representative of university students than are the protesters.
![Page 65: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Finding Hidden Premises: Charity
Charity is the virtue of giving freely to those who are in need.
‘Charity’ in argument analysis means to interpret the person making the argument in a way that makes the argument most likely to be true.
(We must, however, be faithful to the argument made, and not interpret in a way that the author clearly didn’t mean.)
![Page 66: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
CharityIf someone makes an argument like this:
Premise: AConclusion: C
They are probably assuming something like: if A then C; if A then probably C; if A, then usually C; C is the best explanation for A…
![Page 67: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
CharityIf someone makes an argument like this:
Premise: X is FConclusion: X is G
Then they are probably assuming something like: Everything that’s F is also G; Most things that are F are also G; Things that are F are probably also G…
![Page 68: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Example
Premise: Group X of students is more numerous than group YConclusion: Group X is more representative than group Y
Probable assumption: Usually when you have two groups A and B of some larger group C, if A is more numerous than B, A is more representative of C’s views.
![Page 69: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Charity and Goals
Consider the following argument:
Premise: Giving students a fail grade will damage their self-confidence. Conclusion: We should not fail students.
![Page 70: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Charity and Goals
Consider the following argument:
Premise: Giving students a fail grade will damage their self-confidence.Hidden Premise: We should not damage students’ self-confidence.Conclusion: We should not fail students.
![Page 71: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Charity and Goals
Consider the following argument:
Premise: Giving students a fail grade will damage their self-confidence.Hidden Premise: We should not damage students’ self-confidence.Hidden Premise: If we should not do P and Q causes P, then we shouldn’t do Q.Conclusion: We should not fail students.
![Page 72: Argument Analysis](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816199550346895dd14c5f/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Charity and GoalsIn general, if someone makes an argument:
Premise: P causes QConclusion: We should [not] do P
They are probably assuming:1. Q is good [bad].2. We should [not] do things that have good [bad] outcomes.