Liberty
University PHIL 201 Study Guide Lesson 6 solutions answers right
Study
Guide Lesson 4
Study
Guide Lesson 5
Study Guide: Lesson 6
Analyzing Arguments
Lesson Overview
In our final lesson on logic and arguing,
we discuss the tasks of constructing and analyzing an argument. Throughout the
rest of this course, you will be introduced to a variety of theories that
attempt to answer some puzzling philosophical questions. These theories will
argue for a particular way to answer the questions, and you will want to be
able to evaluate those arguments to see if you agree with them or not. This
lesson will give you a tactical approach in how to perform the tasks of analyzing
and evaluating arguments as well as how to construct an argument of your own.
Tasks
View and take notes on the video
“Analyzing Arguments.” It aims to orient you to the main issues in the reading.
Read and take notes from Chapter 7 of Prelude to Philosophy:
“Analyzing Arguments.” As you read, make sure to understand the following
points and questions:
·
Why is clarity important for a good
argument?
·
What is the difference between
consistent and coherent?
·
What determines how comprehensive an
argument needs to be?
·
What are the 2 basic approaches to
structuring an argument?
·
Explain the idea of fair use of evidence.
·
What is a positive/negative approach and
what is the advantage of using it?
·
What is the advantage of a best explanation
approach?
·
List and explain the 5 aspects of a best
explanation.
·
What is the principle of simplicity and
what is a danger concerning it?
·
What is the very first task in analyzing
an argument?
·
What are 3 ways to find the conclusion
in an argument?
·
What is the common standard logical
order for an argument?
·
Why do we ask about the premises
supporting the conclusion before asking about the truthfulness of the premises?
·
What are the 2 reasons arguments fail?
·
How does observing language help us to
determine the reliability of the premises?
·
What is meant by examples being
representative? What is a counterexample?
·
Explain the problems of unqualified and
conflicting authorities and how to resolve them.
·
What are some of the traps to watch out
for when arguing causally?
Terms
Make sure you fully understand the
following terms and concepts:
|
·
Consistency
·
Coherence
·
Comprehensive
·
Explanatory Scope
·
Explanatory Power
·
Plausible
·
Ad Hoc
|
·
Illumination
·
Occam’s Razor
·
Indicator Terms
·
Inferential Link
·
Counterexample
·
Causal Argument
|
Study Guide: Lesson 4
A Little Logic
Lesson Overview
Logic is the primary tool or methodology
in studying philosophy. Philosophy is about analyzing and constructing
arguments and a good understanding of the basics of logical reasoning is
essential in performing that task. The next 3 lessons will focus on logic and
analyzing arguments. In this lesson, you will first be introduced to the laws
of logic. These are the first principles for all reasoning. We will then
discuss the specialized terminology we use in logic. Finally, we will examine 2
major kinds of logical reasoning: deductive and inductive. We will consider
different forms of arguments under each and discuss how to evaluate these
arguments. Take note that a large part of this lesson is about learning the
terminology for logic.
Tasks
Read and take notes from Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 5: “A
Little Logic.” As you read, make sure you understand the following points and
questions:
·
Why are the laws of logic foundational?
·
List and explain the 3 laws of logic.
·
Know the symbolic expression of the law
of non-contradiction and how it clears up confusions.
·
Explain the common confusion concerning
God and contradictions.
·
Know the symbolic expression of the Law
of Excluded Middle. Why is it called the Law of Excluded Middle?
·
Know the why the laws of logic are
self-evident.
·
Know the three parts of an argument.
·
Distinguish the language of evaluating
arguments (deductive and inductive) from how we evaluate propositions.
·
Explain the relationship between truth
value of the propositions with the validity/strength of the argument.
·
Know the point about agreeing with the
conclusion of an argument and it being a good argument.
·
Know the kind of conclusion arrived at
by a valid deductive argument.
·
Note the difference in terminology
between the laws of logic and the rules of valid inference.
·
Explain the categorical syllogism (you
did not need to memorize the chart nor the 6 rules of valid inference).
·
Explain the disjunctive syllogism and
know the fallacy.
·
Explain what a hypothetical proposition
is doing and what it is not doing.
·
Explain the hypothetical syllogism and
know the two fallacies.
·
Contrast induction with deduction.
·
How are inductive arguments evaluated in
comparison to deductive arguments and what makes an argument stronger or
weaker?
·
Explain the 6 forms of inductive
arguments.
·
Know the idea of relevant similarity concerning analogies.
View the Presentation: “Deductive and
Inductive Arguments” as it is a good summary of some of the reading in this
module/week.
Terms
Make sure you fully understand the
following terms and concepts:
|
·
Laws of Logic
·
Law of Non-Contradiction
·
Law of Excluded Middle
·
Self-Evident
·
Argument
·
Proposition
·
Premises
·
Conclusion
·
Inference
·
Non-Sequitur
·
Valid/Invalid
·
Strong/Weak
·
Truth Value
·
Sound
·
Cogent
·
Deduction
·
Valid Deductive Argument
·
Syllogism
·
Rules of Valid Inference
·
Categorical Syllogism
|
·
Categorical Proposition
·
Disjunctive Syllogism
·
Disjunctive Proposition
·
Alternant
·
Fallacy of Affirming the
Alternant
·
Hypothetical Syllogism: Pure
and Mixed
·
Hypothetical Proposition
·
Antecedent
·
Consequent
·
Modus Ponens
·
Modus Tollens
·
Fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent
·
Fallacy of Affirming the
Consequent
·
Induction
·
Generalization
·
Analogy
·
Probability Calculus
·
Statistical Reasoning
·
Causal Inference
·
Formal Fallacy
|
Study Guide: Lesson 5
Informal Fallacies
Lesson Overview
In our last lesson, we began a study in
logic and overviewed the basic terminology and types of logical argumentation.
In this lesson, we survey a number of well-known informal fallacies. Formal
fallacies break specific rules of valid inference, but informal fallacies do
not a break a specific rule. They are guilty of bad reasoning due to a flaw in
the content of the argument. We will organize the fallacies around 4 types of
flaws: weak induction, ambiguous language, questionable presumptions, and
irrelevant issues.
Tasks
Read and take notes on Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 6:
“Informal Fallacies.” As you read, make sure you understand the following
points and questions:
·
Explain the difference between a formal
fallacy and an informal fallacy.
·
What is a fallacy of weak induction?
·
Explain the fallacies of hasty
generalization, sweeping generalization, weak analogy, and slippery slope.
·
Describe the fallacy of false cause and
know the different types.
·
What is a fallacy of ambiguity?
·
Explain the fallacies of equivocation,
hypostatization, amphiboly, composition, and division.
·
What is the problem with using language
that is emotionally loaded or a cliché in an argument?
·
What is a fallacy of presumption?
Explain the difference between assuming and presuming.
·
Explain begging the question and its
different forms.
·
Explain the fallacies of bifurcation,
special pleading, and complex question.
·
What is a fallacy of relevance?
·
Explain the 3 different types of ad hominem fallacies.
·
Explain the 3 different types of ad populum fallacies.
·
Explain the red herring, straw man and
appeal to pity fallacies.
Terms
Make sure you fully understand the
following terms and concepts:
|
·
Hasty Generalization
·
Sweeping Generalization
·
Weak Analogy
·
False Cause
·
Post Hoc
·
Oversimplified Cause
·
Non causa pro causa
·
Ambiguity
·
Equivocate
·
Hypostatization
·
Personification
·
Amphiboly
·
Composition
|
·
Division
·
Cliché
·
Presume
·
Begging the Question
·
Bifurcation
·
Euphemism
·
Pejorative
·
Ad Hominem
·
Tu Quoque
·
Ad Populum
·
Red Herring
·
Straw Man
|
No comments:
Post a Comment