arguments part-2736
TRANSCRIPT
Do You Agree with Him? Why?Do You Agree with Him? Why?
Source: http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg
An Inconvenient TruthAn Inconvenient Truth
Must See:Must See:An Inconvenient Truth (Video). URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=%22Inconvenient+truth%22&hl=en Futurama explains Global Warming - as used in An Inconvenient Truth - Google Video. URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826207674342179094&q=%22global+warming%22&hl=en Climate Crises (site): http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Must See:Must See:An Inconvenient Truth (Video). URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=%22Inconvenient+truth%22&hl=en Futurama explains Global Warming - as used in An Inconvenient Truth - Google Video. URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826207674342179094&q=%22global+warming%22&hl=en Climate Crises (site): http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Global Warming ProjectionsGlobal Warming Projections
Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Global Warming PredictionsGlobal Warming Predictions
Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Risks and Impacts of Global WarmingRisks and Impacts of Global Warming
Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Sea Level ProjectionsSea Level Projections
Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
Sea Ice Thickness Sea Ice Thickness
Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery
The Earth’s Greenhouse EffectThe Earth’s Greenhouse Effect
Module 3: Arguments - Part 2 (of 3)Module 3: Arguments - Part 2 (of 3)
1. Distinguishing Fact & Opinion
7. Evaluating Arguments
2. What is an Argument?
5. Deduction &Induction
6. Analyzing Arguments
8. Writing Arguments
3. Identifying Premises & Conclusions
4. What Is Not an Argument?
““When asked how World War III would be fought, When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how
World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones!”World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones!”
Remember!Remember!
Before we can effectively analyze Before we can effectively analyze and evaluate an argument, we and evaluate an argument, we
need to understand clearly what need to understand clearly what kind of argument is being kind of argument is being
offered.offered.
Arguments below
deductive or inductive?
Types of Arguments:
Deductive argumentsDeductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises.
Inductive argumentsInductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.
3.5 Deduction & Induction3.5 Deduction & Induction
Argument 1
All Humans are Mortal.
P. Ramlee is human.
Therefore, P. Ramlee is Mortal.
Argument 2
All of Yasmin Ahmad‘s movies have been good.
Therefore, Yasmin Ahmad‘s next movie will probably be good.
3.5 Deduction & Induction3.5 Deduction & Induction
KEY DIFFERENCESKEY DIFFERENCES
Deductive arguments claim that…Deductive arguments claim that… Inductive arguments claim that…Inductive arguments claim that…
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
The premises provide conclusive evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
It is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, meaning that if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion.
If the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true.
The conclusion follows probably from the premises.
The premises provide good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Although it is logically consistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true.
Source: G Bassham & Co., Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, p.58
3.5 Deduction & Induction3.5 Deduction & Induction
There are four tests that can be used to determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive:
1.1. The Indicator Word TestThe Indicator Word Test
2.2. The Strict Necessity TestThe Strict Necessity Test
3.3. The Common Pattern TestThe Common Pattern Test
4.4. The Principle of Charity TestThe Principle of Charity Test
Farah is a BBA student.Most BBA students own laptops.
So, probably Farah owns a laptop.
3.5.1 3.5.1 The Indicator Word TestThe Indicator Word Test
The indicator word testindicator word test asks whether there are any indicator words that provide clues whether a deductive or inductive argument is being offered.
Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases like necessarily, logically, it must be the case that, and this proves that.
Common induction indicator words include words or phrases like probably, likely, it is plausible to suppose that, it is reasonable to think that, and it's a good bet that.
In the example above, the word probably shows that the argument is inductive.
3.5.2 3.5.2 The Strict Necessity TestThe Strict Necessity Test
The strict necessity teststrict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows from the premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is deductive.
In this example, the conclusion does follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. Although the premises are both false, the conclusion does follow logically from the premises, because if the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true as well.
Texans are architects.No architects are Democrats.So, no Texans are Democrats.
3.5.3 3.5.3 The Common Pattern TestThe Common Pattern Test
The common pattern testcommon pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive, then the argument is probably deductive.
If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically inductive, then the argument is probably inductive.
In the example above, the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning called "argument by elimination.“
Arguments by eliminationArguments by elimination are arguments that seek to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains. Arguments of this type are always deductive.
Either Bruce Lee voted in the last election, or he didn't.Only citizens can vote.
Bruce Lee is not, and has never been, a citizen.So, Bruce Lee didn't vote in the last election.
3.5.4 3.5.4 The Principle of Charity TestThe Principle of Charity Test
In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Zaid's argument should be regarded as deductive or inductive. For arguments like these, we fall back on the principle of charity testprinciple of charity test.
According to the principle of charity testprinciple of charity test, we should always interpret an unclear argument or passage as generously as possible.
We could interpret Zaid's argument as deductive. But this would be uncharitable, since the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. (It is logically possible--although highly unlikely--that a 90-year-old woman who walks with a cane could climb Gunung Kinabalu.) Thus, the principle of charity test tells us to treat the argument as deductive.
Ramlan: Karen told me her grandmother recently climbed Gunung Kinabalu.Zaid : Well, Karen must be pulling your leg. Karen's grandmother is over 90 years old and walks with a cane.
3.5 Exercise 13.5 Exercise 1
TonyTony:: Are there any good Italian restaurants in town? Are there any good Italian restaurants in town?
NasirNasir:: Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan rigatoni, Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan rigatoni, their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't think their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't think you can go wrong with any of their pasta dishes.you can go wrong with any of their pasta dishes.
Is Nasir’s argument deductive or
inductive? Why?
3.5 Exercise 23.5 Exercise 2
I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology textbook I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology textbook as well as my biology and history textbooks. Let's see, I have as well as my biology and history textbooks. Let's see, I have $200. My biology textbook costs $65 and my history textbook $200. My biology textbook costs $65 and my history textbook costs $52. My psychology textbook costs $60. With taxes, costs $52. My psychology textbook costs $60. With taxes, that should come to about $190. Yep, I have enough.that should come to about $190. Yep, I have enough.
Is this argument deductive or
inductive? Why?
3.5 Exercise 33.5 Exercise 3
MotherMother:: Don't give Shahariza that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I Don't give Shahariza that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I think She is allergic to walnuts. Last week she ate some oatmeal think She is allergic to walnuts. Last week she ate some oatmeal cookies with walnuts, and she broke out in a severe rash.cookies with walnuts, and she broke out in a severe rash.
FatherFather:: Shahariza isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember she ate Shahariza isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember she ate some walnut fudge ice cream at Fuadah's birthday party last some walnut fudge ice cream at Fuadah's birthday party last spring? She didn't have any allergic reaction then.spring? She didn't have any allergic reaction then.
Is the Father’s argument
deductive or inductive? Why?
3.5 Deduction & Induction3.5 Deduction & Induction
TypeType DescriptionDescription
InductiveInductive
ReasoningReasoning
Making observations, and then drawing conclusions from those observations Moves from specific evidence to general conclusion Conclusion must be figured out and then evaluated for validity Inductive = Evidence Conclusion Questions to ask:
What evidence is available? What has been observed? What can be concluded from that evidence? Is that conclusion logical?
DeductiveDeductive
ReasoningReasoning
Moves from conclusion to evidence for the conclusion Evaluate if the evidence is valid Includes formal logic Deductive = Conclusion Evidence Questions to ask:
What is the conclusion? What evidence supports it? Is that evidence logical?
“ “Formal education will make you a living; Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.”self-education will make you a fortune.”
- Jim Rohn - Jim Rohn
3.6 Analyzing Arguments3.6 Analyzing Arguments
Identifying Premises & Conclusions Identifying Premises & Conclusions (Refer to 3.3) (Refer to 3.3)
Diagramming Short ArgumentsDiagramming Short Arguments
Summarizing Longer ArgumentsSummarizing Longer Arguments
To analyze an argument means to break it up intovarious parts to see clearly what conclusion is
being defended and on what grounds.
3.6.1 3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments Diagramming Short Arguments
DiagrammingDiagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).
Six (6) basic steps:
1. Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and conclusion indicators you see.
2. Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument (Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.)
3. Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support.
4. Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of flowchart that shows which premises are intended to support which conclusions.
5. Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support. Indicate linked premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked premises, underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support
6. Put the argument’s main conclusion at the bottom of the diagram.
3.6.1 3.6.1 Diagramming Short ArgumentsDiagramming Short Arguments
1. Find the main conclusion first.2. Pay close attention to premise and conclusion premise and conclusion
indicatorsindicators.3. Remember that sentences containing the word andand often
contain two or more separate statements.4. Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and
disjunctive statements (either-or statements) as single single statementsstatements.
5. Don’t number or diagram any sentence that is not a not a statementstatement.
6. Don’t diagram irrelevant statementsirrelevant statements.7. Don’t diagram redundant statementsredundant statements.
TIPS
3.6.2 3.6.2 Summarizing Longer ArgumentsSummarizing Longer Arguments
The goal of summarizing longer arguments is to provide a brief synopsis of the argumentbrief synopsis of the argument that accurately and clearly restates the that accurately and clearly restates the main points in the summarizer’s own main points in the summarizer’s own words.words.
Summarizing involves two skills:
Paraphrasing Paraphrasing
Finding missing premises and conclusionsFinding missing premises and conclusions
3.6.2 Paraphrasing3.6.2 Paraphrasing
A paraphraseparaphrase is a detailed restatement of a passage using different words and phrases. A good paraphrase is:
AccurateAccurate It reproduces the author’s meaning fairly and without bias and distortion.
ClearClear Clarifies what an argument is saying. It often translates complex and confusing language into language that’s easier to understand.
ConciseConcise It captures the essence of an argument, and strips away all the irrelevant or unimportant details and puts the key points of the argument in a nutshell.
CharitableCharitable It is often possible to interpret a passage in more than one way. In such cases, the principle of charity requires that we interpret the passage as charitable as the evidence reasonably permits (e.g. clarifying the arguer’s intent in ways that make the arguments stronger and less easy to attack).
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – AccurateAccurate
Example:
Original Passage: Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very
remote relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. (George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796)
Paraphrase: Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For
this reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts for reasons that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial ties that would get us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of European politics.
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – ClearClear
Example:
Original:
The patient exhibited symptoms of an edema in the occipital-parietal region and an abrasion on the left patella.
Paraphrase:
The patient had a bump on the back of his head and a scrape on his left knee.
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – ConciseConcise
Example:
Original:
The shop wasn’t open at that point of time, owing to the fact that there was no electrical power in the building. (23 word)
Paraphrase:
The shop was closed then because there was no electricity in the building. (13 words)
3.6.2 Paraphrasing – 3.6.2 Paraphrasing – CharitableCharitable
Example:Original: Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if
you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.
Paraphrase: Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that
greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.
3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions
“The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King (BK).”
(Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK)
In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated for different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing something, etc).
3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions
An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an EnthymemeEnthymeme.
Two (2) basic rules:Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentionsFaithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions. . Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say – to reach his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument must be consistent with everything the arguer says.Be charitable.Be charitable.Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a plausible way of interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2) makes the argument as good an argument as it can be.
Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.
3.6.2 3.6.2 StandardizingStandardizing
To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called Standardizing.
StandardizingStandardizing consists of restating an argument consists of restating an argument in in
standard logical form standard logical form when each step in the when each step in the argument argument
is numbered consecutively, premises are stated is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above above
the conclusions they are claimed to support, and the conclusions they are claimed to support, and justifications are provided for each conclusion justifications are provided for each conclusion
in the argument.in the argument.
StandardizingStandardizing consists of restating an argument consists of restating an argument in in
standard logical form standard logical form when each step in the when each step in the argument argument
is numbered consecutively, premises are stated is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above above
the conclusions they are claimed to support, and the conclusions they are claimed to support, and justifications are provided for each conclusion justifications are provided for each conclusion
in the argument.in the argument.
3.6.2 3.6.2 StandardizingStandardizing
Standardizing Standardizing involves five (5) basic steps:1. Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main
conclusion (it may be only implied) and any major premises and sub-conclusions. Paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning
2. Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.3. Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct
logical order (i.e., with the premises placed above the conclusions they are intended to support).
4. Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).5. Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In
other words, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate in parentheses from which previous lines in the argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed to directly follow.
3.6.2 3.6.2 Standardizing - ExampleStandardizing - Example
We can see something only after it has happened. Future events, however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems
to imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically impossible.
Standardizing:Standardizing:1. We can see something only after it has happened. 2. Future events have not yet happened. 3. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not
happened (from 1-2)4. It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to
have happened.5.5. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.][Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]
(From 3-4)
Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 188-189.(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)
The argument is lacking a main conclusion.
3.6.2 3.6.2 Standardizing:Standardizing: Common Mistakes to AvoidCommon Mistakes to Avoid
Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid):
1.1. Don’t write in incomplete sentences.Don’t write in incomplete sentences.
2.2. Don’t include more than one statement per line.Don’t include more than one statement per line.
3.3. Don’t include anything that is not a statement.Don’t include anything that is not a statement.
4.4. Don’t include anything that is not a premise or Don’t include anything that is not a premise or a conclusion.a conclusion.
Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 192-193.(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)
Group ActivityGroup Activity
Global Warming:Global Warming: Most scientists now argue that atmospheric pollution is making the world’s climate warmer.
Break into groups of 4 - 6, read the articles on Global Warming provided by the
lecturer, and then reflect, discuss and answer the following questions:
StandardizeStandardize (summarize the arguments) the “Global warming” article (150 words or less).Is Global Warming relevant to usrelevant to us? Why?What strategies can MalaysiaMalaysia use to reduce pollution?What can YouYou do to reduce pollution?
20 min Group discussion
5 min Summarize discussion findings
15 min Group presentation & discussion
The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the lecturer before or during the next class.
SummarySummary
5. Deduction and Induction
Deductive argumentsDeductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises.
Inductive argumentsInductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.
2. Analyzing Arguments
To analyzeanalyze an argument means to break it up into various parts to see clearly what conclusion is being defended and on what grounds.
DiagrammingDiagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).
StandardizingStandardizing is a method used to analyze longer arguments, which involves paraphrasing and finding missing premises and conclusions.
Any Questions? Any Questions?
The EndThe End
Contact DetailsContact Details
Zaid Ali AlsagoffZaid Ali Alsagoff
UNIVERSITI TUN ABDUL RAZAK 16-5, Jalan SS 6/1247301 Kelana Jaya
Selangor Darul EhsanMalaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: 603-7627 7238 Fax: 603-7627 7246
ReferencesReferences
BooksBooksChapter 3 (Deduction & Induction) & 7 (Analyzing Arguments): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007
Online ResourcesOnline ResourcesClimate Crisis: http://www.climatecrisis.net/Global Warming: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
GraphicsGeorge Bush (under water): http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg Global Warming (sun and earth): http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-2.jpg Global Warming (factories): http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/Desktop-6.jpg The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-4.gif P. Ramlee: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Ramlee.jpg Big burger: http://grec-frites.typepad.com/stock/images/booker_eating_big_burger.jpg