arguments part-2736

45
Zaid Ali Alsagoff [email protected] Module 3: Module 3: Arguments Arguments Part 2 Part 2

Upload: instructorperry

Post on 06-May-2015

1.341 views

Category:

Spiritual


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Arguments part-2736

Zaid Ali Alsagoff

[email protected]

Module 3:Module 3:ArgumentsArguments

Part 2Part 2

Page 2: Arguments part-2736

Do You Agree with Him? Why?Do You Agree with Him? Why?

Source: http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg

Page 3: Arguments part-2736

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/

Page 4: Arguments part-2736

Global Warming ProjectionsGlobal Warming Projections

Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Page 5: Arguments part-2736

Global Warming PredictionsGlobal Warming Predictions

Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Page 6: Arguments part-2736

Risks and Impacts of Global WarmingRisks and Impacts of Global Warming

Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Page 7: Arguments part-2736

Sea Level ProjectionsSea Level Projections

Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Page 8: Arguments part-2736

Sea Ice Thickness Sea Ice Thickness

Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Page 9: Arguments part-2736

The Earth’s Greenhouse EffectThe Earth’s Greenhouse Effect

Page 10: Arguments part-2736

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?

Page 11: Arguments part-2736

““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!”

Page 12: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 13: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 14: Arguments part-2736

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

Page 15: Arguments part-2736

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

Page 16: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 17: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 18: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 19: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 20: Arguments part-2736

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?

Page 21: Arguments part-2736

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?

Page 22: Arguments part-2736

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?

Page 23: Arguments part-2736

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?

Page 24: Arguments part-2736

“ “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

Page 25: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 26: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 27: Arguments part-2736

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

Page 28: Arguments part-2736

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

Page 29: Arguments part-2736

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).

Page 30: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 31: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 32: Arguments part-2736

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)

Page 33: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 34: Arguments part-2736

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).

Page 35: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 36: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 37: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 38: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 39: Arguments part-2736

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)

Page 40: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 41: Arguments part-2736

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.

Page 42: Arguments part-2736

Any Questions? Any Questions?

Page 43: Arguments part-2736

The EndThe End

Page 44: Arguments part-2736

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

Page 45: Arguments part-2736

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