Reasoning Argument lecture IVYT 104

Slide 1: 

To Help you in your understanding, Chapter 2 is a good place to make a foundation for understanding…… The Elements of Reasoning THINKING IS A PROCESS Drawing conclusions about something Forming concepts Making decisions Having a point of view

Slide 2: 

THINKING IS A PROCESS Drawing conclusions about something Forming concepts Making decisions Having a point of view CRITICAL THINKING #1 and #3 above Thinking about thinking It has to be reflective Must meet high standards—reflective reasoning done well. When we reflect on our thinking, the elements are what we reflect about.

Slide 4: 

Arguments can be separated into two categories: deductive and inductive

Slide 5: 

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. 1. All men are mortal. (premise) 2. Socrates was a man. (premise) 3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion) If the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible for the conclusion to be false.

Slide 6: 

An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. 1. Socrates was Greek. (premise) 2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise) 3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion) Even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example). Includes probability, likelihood, possibility and reasonability.

Slide 7: 

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE CONCLUSIONS INCLUDED, MAY NOT BE NEW INFORMATION Used mostly in Mathematics NEW INFORMATION TO EXPAND OUR KNOWLEDGE

Slide 8: 

Argument by example Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that supports claim P.    Premise n: Example n is an example that supports claim P.    Conclusion: Claim P is true. = Premise 1: Lena ate pizza two months ago and did not contribute any money. Premise 2: Lena ate pizza a month ago and did not contribute any money. Premise 3: Lena ate pizza two weeks ago and did not contribute any money. Premise 4: Lena ate pizza a week ago and did not contribute any money. Conclusion: Lena is a pizza mooch who eats but does not contribute.

Slide 9: 

Argument by Authority

Slide 10: 

Argument from Data CLAIM + GROUNDS

Slide 11: 

Ad Hominem

Slide 12: 

Argumentum ad Populum "But officer, I don't deserve a ticket;  everyone goes this speed.  If I went any slower, I wouldn't be going with the stream of traffic."

Slide 13: 

Logical Argument Pure Logic

Slide 14: 

Syllogisms

Slide 15: 

FALACIES It is raining because there are water drops on my window. 1. All humans are mammals. (premise)2. All cats are mammals. (premise)3. All humans are cats. (conclusion)

Slide 16: 

Bandwagon Fallacy

Slide 17: 

Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees. False Analogy

Slide 18: 

Faulty Cause and Effect Relationship =

Slide 19: 

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

Slide 20: 

Reasoning from Consequences: Teleological Reasoning Cost/Benefit Analysis Benefit A Benefit C Benefit B Benefit D Best Benefit because of low cost / Cost of actionto be taken for each =

Slide 21: 

Reasoning from Statistics

Slide 22: 

Reasoning from Examples

Slide 23: 

Reasoning from Comparison or Precedent ROSE : FLOWER :: aunt : _____ 1.relative 2.uncle 3.family (1973),[1] a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. ANALOGY

Slide 24: 

Reasoning from authority and testimony Is the authority qualified to make a judgment? Is the authority trustworthy and honest? Is the authority experienced?

Slide 25: 

1 2 6 7 14 15 8 11 3 4 5 9 12 16 10 13 21 20 19 18 17 NOT QUITE JEOPARDY

Slide 26: 

A fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers(or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument." BANDWAGON

Slide 27: 

Argument based on the facts of previously experienced phenomena and its similarities. Reasoning from comparisons or precedent

Slide 28: 

Circular Reasoning An attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.

Slide 29: 

Faulty Cause and Effect Relationship When the cause does not match the effect in relation to an event, behavior, or outcome.

Slide 30: 

Ad Hominem Argument and Fallacy A general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. It involves an attack against the character of person making the claim, and then attack is taken to be evidence against the claim.

Slide 31: 

Argument by Authority Argument that relies on the testimony and reasoning of a credible source. This is an attempt to use expertise in a particular field (from parenting to religion to education) to advance a particular belief.

Slide 32: 

Analogy Comparing one thing to another, even though they are not physically the same, for example: Make like Houdini and disappear.

Slide 33: 

Fallacies Defects in an argument (other than false premises) which cause an argument to be invalid, unsound or weak. They are only found only in deductive arguments, and they look like and mimic valid logical arguments, but are in fact invalid.

Slide 34: 

Pure logic Concerned with what is true and how we can know whether something is true. This involves the formalization of logical arguments and proofs in terms of symbols representing propositions and logical connectives, by a set of rules which are assumed to be self-evident.

Slide 35: 

Inductive Argument Argument in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is possible that the conclusion could be false. They also provide us with new ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world. They deal with possibility, likelihood, probability, and reasonability.

Slide 36: 

Syllogisms Three part deductive arguments. They assert, if all of category B fits into category A, and if all of C fits into category B, then all of C must be A as well. Syllogistic reasoning is a type of deductive argument which involves trying to categorize objects by fitting them into contained circles.

Slide 37: 

Argumentum ad Populum A fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. Everybody does it, why can't I?

Slide 38: 

Argument from/by Example Argument in which a claim is supported by providing examples. Examples must be numerous, relevant, and specific or clearly explained to be strong.

Slide 39: 

False Analogy What occurs when it is proposed that Example B and A are similar, but they actually have more differences than similarities.

Slide 40: 

Argument from Data What gives useful categories by which an argument may be analyzed to make a claim: a statement that you are asking the other person to accept. Argument is made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim.

Slide 41: 

Reasoning from Statistics A Quantitative and powerful tool for description or hypothesis testing, but is no guarantee of a study's worth.

Slide 42: 

Reasoning from Consequences An argument in which we treat the principles as values rather than as imperatives, and as ends to be achieved in society, rather than laws governing action directly. Is it for the good of humankind?

Slide 43: 

Deductive Argument Argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Conclusions are already contained, even if implicitly, in our premises.

Slide 44: 

Reasoning by example Basing conclusions on facts, illustrations, or cases.

Slide 45: 

Logical Argument A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning; "I can't follow your line of reasoning".

Slide 46: 

Argument from Authority An argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority, and the strength of the support depends on the quality of the authority in question.