Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
critical c3
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| soundness | When an argument is valid and its premises are true, then it is a sound argument. A sound argument is perfect. |
| validity | An argument is valid only if it is impossible for premises to be true and conclusion to be false → (i) if all premises are true, conclusion has to be true, and (ii) conclusion must logically follow from the premises |
| the critical thinking mistakes | |
| missing premise | Missing premises are crucial premises the author has left out in their argument, making it an invalid argument; the premise can be true but the conclusion can be false |
| Validity Test | Suppose the premises are true. Could the conclusion still be false? If yes → invalid. If no → valid. |
| False Premise Test | Suppose one premise is false; if the other still supports the conclusion, they're independent. If not, they're dependent. |
| Critical thinking | need acceptable and sufficient reasoning for beliefs and decisions - Reasons should be true and support our beliefs and decisions (independent of e/o) |
| Every argument is either valid or invalid | true |
| Test for validity: | 1. Assume premises are true. 2. Could the conclusion be false regardless? 3. If not, the argument is valid. If yes, the argument is invalid. |
| an argument can also be invalid if the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises | true |
| Principle of charity | • To evaluate an argument, make it **valid** first → focus shifts to truth of premises • Add a premise: a **conditional** (existing premise → conclusion) • Now that it's valid, assess whether premises are **true, factual, sufficient, and acceptable** |
| Piling on independent premises | Sometimes independent premises work in a ‘piling up’ way; this can make the conclusion also look like a premise, making it look like an invalid argument |
| If all independent premises are made into a conditional statement where the antecedent is all the independent premises and the consequent is the conclusion, then added conditional acts as the missing premise, making the argument valid | true |
| Sometimes, in an argument, 1 premise or assertion may be sound but another may not | true |
| Logical form | Validity can be evaluated by logical form All the As are Bs, and all the Bs are Cs, so all the As are Cs. All the As are Bs, and all the Bs are Cs, so some of the As are Cs. All of the As are Bs, and none of the Bs are Cs, so none of the As are Cs. |
| Universal distinction | all cats have hearts |
| general distinction | cats have hearts |
| distinction 2 | At least one: some cats have hearts vs not all: only some cats have hearts |
| Contradictories | two propositions that have opposite truth-values |
| Contraries | two propositions that cannot both be true but can both be false |
| Subcontraries | two propositions that cannot both be false but can both be true |
| Valid arguments: | All the As are Bs, so some of the As are Bs - None of the As are Bs, so some of the As are not Bs |
| Invalid arguments: | Some of the As are Bs, so some of the As are not Bs → contradictories It is not true that all the As are Bs, so none of the As are Bs → contraries |
| conclusion that logically follows for valid 2 premise argument | - All the As are Bs and all the Bs are Cs... → some of the As are Cs - All of the As are Bs and none of the Bs are Cs... → some of the As are not Cs |
| Valid two-premise arguments: | - All the As are Bs, and all the Bs are Cs, so all of the As are Cs - All of the As are Bs, and none of the Bs are Cs, so none of the As are Cs |
| 2 questions to ask when evaluating an argument: | (1) are its premises true? (2) is the argument valid? |
| when is an argument valid | - An argument is valid when it is not possible for its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false → if premises are true, conclusion muse be true too |
| When argument is valid AND its premises are true (both are independent and not situationally dependent), then it is a sound argument = perfect argument | true |
| Test to tell when an argument’s premises provide the best possible kind of logical support → | • Evaluating an end = assessing reasons to believe it's a **good goal** • Evaluating means = assessing reasons to believe they'll **effectively achieve** that end • Both must be evaluated **independently** |
| Practical strategy | be charitable |
| What is the "piling-on" effect in arguments? | When many independent premises are used together, each may not be sufficient on its own, but collectively they support the conclusion |
| How do you fix a piling-on argument? | To counter this “piling-on” effect, the large number of independent premises can work together with a missing premise to support the conclusion |
| What makes piling-on premises work together? | No single reason is conclusive, but all together they strongly suggest the conclusion |
| The Words Test | to tell whether premises are dependent or independent, see whether some of the conclusion’s keywords occur only in one premise and the other keywords occur only in another → if so, the premises are likely dependent. |
| False Premise Test | to test whether premises are dependent or independent, suppose one is false; if the other premise can still support the conclusion on its own, then the premises are likely independent. If not, they are likely dependent. |
| *conditionals are almost always dependent and work with another premise | true |
| An argument is valid when it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false → premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion | true |
| Arguments can still be valid with false premises | true, it is about the logical structure and connection of premises leading to conclusion |
| example of adding a conditional to make a valid argument | “If the chair is blue, then I will eat a hamburger. |
| example of adding a conditional but making an invalid argument | “If the chair is blue, then I will eat a hamburger. |
| Reasoning about groups | putting someone/something in a group and then making a statement about the group |
| example of reasoning about groups | “Taylor Swift is a singer. All singers are lumberjacks. Therefore, Taylor Swift is a lumberjack.” → not a conditional, but dependent |
| steps of validity test | 1. Analyze arguments into premises and conclusions 2. Imagine premises are all true 3. Ask whether conclusion could be false 4. If not, it is valid; if yes, it is not valid |
Created by:
aishamahboob