Complex Arguments: What are the conventions of standard form:
3 impt pts
Complex Arguments: Conventions of Standard Form
* Premises should be written as P1, P2, P3, P4 and so on.
* Intermediate conclusions in a complex argument should be written as C(no.)/P(no.)
- e.g. C1/P4: …, C2/P7: …
- Final conclusion in a complex argument should be written as C(no.)
- e.g. C3: …
- Supporting premises used to derive the intermediate conclusions and final conclusions should be indicated in brackets.
- e.g. C1/P4: …… (P1, P2)
- Supporting premises for final conclusion in a complex argument should indicate only the intermediate conclusion that immediately precedes the conclusion and the remaining premises that are not used to derive the intermediate conclusions.
- Example of complex argument:
P1: If A then B
P2: A
C1/P3: B (P1, P2)
P4: Either B or D
C2/P5: Not D (P3, P4)
P6: If E then D
C3: Not E (P5, P6) - Do not include premise indicators and conclusion indicators such as “since”, “as”, “because” , “thus” , “hence” , “therefore” when presenting an argument in Standard Form.
- All statements in Standard Form should NOT contain elaborations and examples.
- All statements (Each premise, intermediate conclusion, final conclusion) should ONLY be ONE sentence/clause (except when clarity is not sacrificed and it is insignificant).
- As Standard Form is a way of presenting the argument in prose, it should not deviate in meaning from the prose, and should not contain more or less than what is in the original.
- Sometimes hidden or unsaid premises might need to be surfaced/fleshed out for the argument to make sense to the reader.
- However the meaning of the prose should be maintained and the hidden premises should be “derivable” from the prose.
- hidden premises usually come out in categorical syllogism or modus pollens or modus tollens sentences (can be derived from that).
Dos and Don’ts when writing standard form?
optional, 4pts
- Do not include premise indicators and conclusion indicators such as “since”, “as”, “because” , “thus” , “hence” , “therefore” when presenting an argument in Standard Form.
- All statements in Standard Form should NOT contain elaborations and examples.
- All statements (Each premise, intermediate conclusion, final conclusion) should ONLY be ONE sentence/clause (except when clarity is not sacrificed and it is insignificant).
- As Standard Form is a way of presenting the argument in prose, it should not deviate in meaning from the prose, and should not contain more or less than what is in the original.
- Sometimes hidden or unsaid premises might need to be surfaced/fleshed out for the argument to make sense to the reader.
- However the meaning of the prose should be maintained and the hidden premises should be “derivable” from the prose.
- hidden premises usually come out in categorical syllogism or modus pollens or modus tollens sentences (can be derived from that).
Affirming the Consequent is usually committed with which syllogism?
Modus Ponens
(Affirming the Antecedent)
P1: If A then B
P2: A
C: B (P1,P2)
Affirming the Consequent
P1: If A, then B
P2: B
C: A (P1, P2)
Denying the Antecedent is usually committed with which syllogism?
Modus Tollens
(Denying the Consequent)
P1: If A then B
P2: Not B
C: Not A (P1,P2)
Denying the Antecedent
P1: If A then B
P2: Not A
C: Not B (P1, P2)
False Dilemma is usually committed with which syllogism?
Disjunctive Syllogism
P1: Either A or B
P2: (not) A/B
C: (not) B/A.
False Dilemma
The False Dilemma Fallacy is an error in reasoning involving a premise which is a disjunction (A or B) that presents alternatives as exhaustive and exclusive when they are not.
Slippery Slope is usually committed with which syllogism?
Hypothetical Syllogism
P1: If A, then B
P2: If B, then C
C: If A, then C. (P1, P2)
Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope Fallacy is an error in reasoning involving premises which contain a chain reaction that is presented to be happening when there is no sufficient reason to believe that the chain reaction is happening or will happen.
Unqualified Generalisation is usually committed with which syllogism?
Categorical Syllogism
P1: All As are Bs.
P2: All Bs are Cs.
C: All As are Cs. (P1,P2)
Unqualified Generalisation
An Unqualified Generalisation is a fallacy that contains a false premise about the entirety of a population, when there may be exceptions.
What are the two parts to a conditional statement?
- A conditional statement has two parts:
- Antecedent (the part of the statement that comes after “if”)
- Consequent (the part of the statement that comes after “then” or what follows from the antecedent)
What must be true for the statement to be correct? 2pts
- For the statement to be correct:
- Do the premises logically lead to the conclusion?
- Are the premises true?
Difference between formal and informal fallacy? 2pt, 1 example for each
Differences between Formal and Informal Fallacy
* Formal fallacy contains an error in structure and form of the argument.
- Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are both examples of a formal fallacy.
- Informal fallacy contains an error in reasoning involving the truth or content of the premises.
- E.g. false premises in Disjunctive, Categorical and Hypothetical Syllogisms
How to explain why an argument is fallacious in context?
- Claim
- State that the argument is fallacious/ contains a fallacy
→ This argument is fallacious because it contains the (fallacy). - Explain the fallacy: State the definition of the fallacy with context from question
→ Fit what is in that scenario in to the definition of the fallacy!! - Evidence & Explanation of evidence
Using evidence (premises and/or conclusion) from the fallacious argument and from your background knowledge where relevant, - clearly bring out why the person is committing the fallacy by:
→ Explaining why the conclusion may not be true even if the premises are true (by providing counter-example)
→ Explaining why the premises do not provide relevant support for the conclusion
→ Explaining why a premise or premises may be false
→ bringing in general knowledge to explain
→ giving counter examples (to support your explanation), talk about what would happen if the opposite is true - Conclusion
- State how the above affects the truth of the conclusion of the fallacious argument.
→ Hence, this argument is fallacious as it contains the (fallacy) which … - Example
Argument: “If you train hard for the competition, you will win a medal. Look at how lazy you are! You definitely won’t win a medal.”
Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent
Explain fallacy in context:
Claim: This argument is fallacious…
Explanation of fallacy: because the argument contains the Denying the Antecedent fallacy. While a conditional statement states that “if A then B”, it is not clear what would follow when A is false or denied.
Evidence & Explanation of evidence: The premise “if you train hard for the competition, you will win a medal” simply asserts what will follow if a competitor trains hard for the competition. It does not assert what will follow if a competitor is lazy. For example, a competitor who is lazy and does not train hard may still win a medal if the other competitors perform poorly.
Conclusion: Hence, it is not logical to conclude that the competitor will not win a medal at the competition even if the premises of the argument are true.
How many formal fallacies are there? What are the formal fallacies? What is the error in formal fallacies?
- In Formal Fallacies, the error in reasoning lies in the form or structure of the argument.
- There are 2 formal fallacies:
- Denying the Antecedent
- Affirming the Consequent
Denying the Antecedent
3-4pts + structure?
Denying the Antecedent
* Definition: Although a conditional statement states that A entails B (if A then B), it does not assert what will follow if A is false (hence it is denying the antecedent fallacy).
- P1: If A then B
- P2: Not A
- C: Not B (P1, P2)
- Correct version (modus tollens – denying the consequent):
- P1: If A, then B
- P2: Not B
- C: Not A (P1, P2)
- The conclusion of an argument with the above form cannot be logically derived from its premises.
- This is because though a conditional statement states that A entails B (if A then B), it does not assert what will follow if A is false.
- Hence, it is not clear whether “Not B” is the conclusion given the premises.
Affirming the Consequent
4-5 pts + structure?
- Definition: Although a conditional statement states that A entails B (if A then B), it does not mean that A is the only condition that will entail B being true (hence affirming the consequent fallacy).
- P1: If A, then B
- P2: B
- C: A (P1, P2)
- Correct version (modus ponens – affirming the antecedent):
- P1: If A, then B
- P2: A
- C: B (P1, P2)
- The conclusion of an argument with the above form cannot be logically derived from its premises.
- This is because though a conditional statement states that A entails B (if A then B), it does not mean that A is the only condition that will entail B being true.
- There could be other conditions that will equally entail B being true. (give example in qn)
- Hence, it is not clear whether “A” is the conclusion given the premises.
How many informal fallacies are there? What are the informal fallacies? What is the error in informal fallacies?
- False dilemma fallacy, unqualified generalisation fallacy, and slippery slope fallacy are classified under the label ‘informal fallacies’.
- They contain an error in reasoning involving the truth of premises (premises may be false).
- There are 9 informal fallacies:
- Unqualified Generalisation
- False Dilemma
- Slippery Slope
- Hasty Generalisation
- Doubtful Cause
- Attacking the Person
- Fallacious Appeal to Pity
- Fallacious Appeal to Popularity
- Fallacious Appeal to Authority
not fallacies but are the opposite of the appeals:
- Legitimate Appeal to Pity
- Legitimate Appeal to Popularity
- Legitimate Appeal to Authority
Unqualified Generalisation
1-2pt
Unqualified Generalisation
* Definition: An Unqualified Generalisation is a fallacy that has an error in reasoning containing a false premise about the entirety of a population, when there are exceptions.
- The above implies that this fallacy is typically found in arguments containing the Categorical Syllogism.
Example:
* P1: All men are insensitive all the time.
* P2: John is a man.
* C: John is insensitive all the time. (P1, P2)
- The premises logically lead to the conclusion
- However, Premise 1 may be false
- This argument contains a UNQUALIFIED GENERALISATION FALLACY
False Dilemma
1-2pt
- Definition: The False Dilemma Fallacy is an error in reasoning involving a premise which is a disjunction (either A or B) that presents alternatives as exhaustive and exclusive when they are not.
- This implies that the False Dilemma Fallacy is found in arguments containing Disjunctive Syllogism(s).
Example:
* P1: Either you are a good father or you are a bad father.
* P2: You are not a bad father.
* C1/P3: You are a good father. (P1, P2)
* P4: If you are a good father, then you have taught me right from wrong.
* C2/P5: You have taught me right from wrong. (P3, P4)
* P6: If you have taught me right from wrong, then you should trust me to do the right thing.
* C3: You should trust me to do the right thing. (P5, P6)
- The premises logically lead to the conclusion
- However, Premise 1 may be false
- This argument contains a FALSE DILEMMA FALLACY
Slippery Slope
1-2pt
Slippery Slope
* Definition: The Slippery Slope Fallacy is an error in reasoning involving premises which contains a chain reaction that is presented to be happening when there is no sufficient reason to believe that the chain reaction is happening or will happen.
- The above implies that this fallacy is typically found in arguments containing the Hypothetical Syllogism.
Hasty Generalisation
1pt
Hasty Generalisation
* Definition: The fallacy of Hasty Generalisation is a fallacy that forms a questionable conclusion about a population based on an unrepresentative sample as the sample size may be too small or biased.
Example:
* So scary! I know six people who returned from the Middle East and all of them caught the MERS virus. I think everyone who travelled to the Middle East must have also caught the virus. I suggest that you better stay away from these people.
Doubtful Cause
1pt
Doubtful Cause
* Definition: The Doubtful Cause fallacy occurs in an argument when it is concluded that one event (A) is the direct cause of another event (B) just because A occurred before B or because there is a correlation between A and B.
Examples:
* Melvin’s dog scratched his leg, and that night he had a fever. His dog must have infected him with something.
* The education ministry found that there is a correlation between parents’ educational levels and their children’s academic performance in school. Children whose parents are university graduates tend to outperform their peers whose parents are non-university graduates. Hence, a child’s academic performance is determined by his or her parents’ educational levels.
Attacking the Person
1pt
Attacking the Person
* The Attacking the Person fallacy is a response to another person’s argument or claim.
* Definition: This fallacy is committed when one tries to discredit another person’s argument by discrediting the person’s character (instead of pointing out the flaws in the person’s argument or claim) when the person’s character has no bearing on the quality of the argument or the truth of the claim.
Example:
* Donald Trump tweeted at 6:19am on March 22, 2018:
“Crazy Joe Biden is trying to act like a tough guy. Actually, he is weak, both mentally and physically, and yet he threatens me, for the second time, with physical assault. He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!”
(Joe Biden was a former vice president of the United States before the Trump Administration and was considering a run for the presidency against Trump then, in 2018.)
Fallacious Appeal to Pity
1-2pt
Fallacious Appeal to Pity
* Definition: A fallacious Appeal to Pity contains premises that urge the intended audience of the argument to accept the conclusion on the grounds of the pitiful circumstances stated in the premises.
* The pitiful circumstances, however, have no relevance to the conclusion.
Example:
* A lawyer makes the following argument before the judge in court: “Your Honour, my client is clearly a very distressed young woman. She toiled for months over her final year project and was frustrated for not making any headway. She’s a very conscientious student and demands high standards from herself and this puts a lot of stress on her. All this stress, unfortunately, overwhelmed her when her university tutor refused to extend the project deadline. That’s why she assaulted the tutor and, unfortunately, killed her. I mean, all she wanted was a little sympathy then, and can we really refuse her that sympathy now? I say that my client be cleared of all charges of murder.”
Fallacious Appeal to Popularity
1pt
Fallacious Appeal to Popularity
* Definition: A fallacious Appeal to Popularity contains premises that urge the intended audience of the argument to accept the conclusion on the grounds that it is widely accepted as true when the truth of the conclusion cannot be established by popular opinion.
Example:
* All my classmates think that it’s okay to eat in class. Since we all agree on this, what’s wrong?
Fallacious Appeal to Authority
1pt
Fallacious Appeal to Authority
* Definition: A fallacious Appeal to Authority contains premises that urge the intended audience of the argument to accept the conclusion simply because a perceived authority says so.
- The appeal to authority becomes questionable when:
1. the alleged “authority” is no real authority
2. the issue at hand is outside the expertise of the cited authority
3. the issue at hand is controversial and experts in the field still disagree amongst themselves
Examples:
* Hey, my CCA senior told me it’s okay to miss I&A lesson, so it’s no big deal if I don’t go to class.
* I think the economic downturn will persist for another six months because Shawn Mendes said so in an interview with Life!
* The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) says that growing genetically modified food is the right thing to do, so there is nothing wrong with farmers growing genetically modified crops.
