TASK 2 - ARGUMENT MAPPING + COMPLEX ARGUMENTS

Question 1

argument mapping

- functions

Answer 1

• represent structure of an argument graphically
• not sequential –> tree
• less demanding on the WM
• facilitate exchange of arguments in group discussions

Question 2

1. micro level

Answer 2

• textual analysis = studying texts that offer reasons/premises (+ or -) for conclusions
• look for indicators that show relationships between statements

Question 3

2. macro level

Answer 3

• represent macro level in argument map

Question 4

conclusion

Answer 4

= main claim/contention = idea that somebody claims is true; wanted to be supported

Question 5

arguments/premises pro

Answer 5

= statements/reasons claimed to provide support for the conclusion

Question 6

arguments/premises contra

Answer 6

= objections = statements/reasons or evidence against the claim

Question 7

single arguments

Answer 7

= argument consists of a contention which is justified using a single premise

Question 8

composite argument

Answer 8

= multiple argument = argument with more than one reason

Question 9

convergent argument

Answer 9

= argument where 2 premises support conclusion separately/independently

Question 10

chain of reasoning

Answer 10

= contention can be a praise for a conclusion at a higher level

Question 11

co-premises

Answer 11

= when several premises together form a source of evidence for a conclusion
- contention that bridges the logical gap between a premise and conclusion

Question 12

dependent premises

Answer 12

= syllogisms = does not support the contention independently from the other premise
- another term for co-premises

Question 13

counterarguments

Answer 13

= two arguments that counter each other

Question 14

dispute

Answer 14

= claim to which several reasons and objections are linked

Question 15

if…then constructions

Answer 15

• must always be represented as single claims in argument
• always form dependent co-premise
• provide argument with a warrant (= justification why a particular premise provides support for a particular claim)

Question 16

fundamental rules

1) golden rule

Answer 16

= each single argument really consists of two or more co-premises
- assumes that you need least 1 co-premise (minor premise) to bridge the gap between the major premise and the conclusion

Question 17

minor premise

Answer 17

= points at an implicit assumption needed to justify the conclusion

Question 18

fundamental rules

2) rabbit rule

Answer 18

= each significant term that is part of the conclusion should also be part of one of the premises

• rabbit cannot simply be pulled out of the magician’s hat; it can only be produced if it has been put there beforehand
• ensures that there is a connection between the premise and the contention

Question 19

fundamental rules

3) holding hands

Answer 19

= if a term forms part of one of the premises but not of the contention, it should also form part of the other premise
- ensures that a co-premise has a connection with another co-premise

Question 20

argument decision

Answer 20

= process of deciding whether a passage contains an argument –> look for

1. indicator words
2. inferential relationship between the statements
3. typical kinds of non-arguments

Question 21

1. indicator words

- conclusion

Answer 21

= so, therefore, hence, accordingly, thus, it follows that, demonstrates that, for this reason

Question 22

1. indicator words

- premises

Answer 22

= because, since, for, as, firstly…, follows from, for the reason that

Question 23

2. inferential relationship

- factual claim

Answer 23

= premises must claim to present evidence or reasons

- often falls outside domain of logic

Question 24

2. inferential relationship

- inferential claim

Answer 24

= there must be a claim that the evidence or reasons support or imply something = claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning process

• objective feature of an argument grounded in its language or structure
• not always easy to detect occurrence of an inferential relationship between statements
• -> mentally insert ‘therefore’

Question 25

explicit inferential claim

Answer 25

= asserted by premise of conclusion indicator words

Question 26

implicit inferential claim

Answer 26

= no indicator words

Question 27

3. non-arguments | - simple non-inferential passages

Answer 27

= unproblematic passages that lack a claim that anything is being proved; no reason/premise to support the conclusion

Question 28

simple non-inferential passages | - warning

Answer 28

= form of expression that is intended to put someone on guard against a dangerous situation

Question 29

simple non-inferential passages | - piece of advice

Answer 29

= form of expression that makes a recommendation about some future decision

Question 30

simple non-inferential passages | - statement of belief/opinion

Answer 30

= form of expression about what someone happens to believe or think about something

Question 31

simple non-inferential passages | - loosely associated statements

Answer 31

= statements that lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others

Question 32

simple non-inferential passages | - report

Answer 32

= group of statements that convey information about some topic or event

Question 33

3. non-arguments | - expository passages

Answer 33

= kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence

Question 34

3. non-arguments | - illustrations

Answer 34

= expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what something means or how it is done

Question 35

3. non-arguments | - explanations

Answer 35

= expression that purports to shed light on some event which is usually accepted as a matter of fact 1. explanandum = statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained 2. explanans = statement that purports to do the explaining

Question 36

3. non-arguments | - conditional statements

Answer 36

=’if… then’ statement

Question 37

extended arguments

Answer 37

1) vertical pattern ≈ chain of reasoning 2) horizontal pattern ≈ composite/convergent argument 3) conjoint premises ≈ co-premises/dependent 4) multiple conclusions

Question 38

deduction

Answer 38

= an argument incorporating the claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false, given that the premises are true; the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty

Question 39

deduction | - indicator words

Answer 39

= necessarily, certainly, absolutely, definitely

Question 40

deduction | - argument forms

Answer 40

1. argument based on mathematics (exception for statistics) = conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation 2. argument from definition (definition of words or terms) = conclusion is claimed to depend merely on definition of some word/phrase in premise/ conclusion 3. categorical syllogism = statements begin with ‘all’, ‘no’ or ‘some’ 4. hypothetical syllogism = have a conditional (if …then) statement for one or both of its premises 5. disjunctive syllogism = have a disjunctive (either…or) statement

Question 41

validity

Answer 41

= determined by the relationship between premises and conclusion; whether the premises support the conclusion

Question 42

valid deductive argument

Answer 42

= argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true

Question 43

invalid deductive argument

Answer 43

= argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true

Question 44

deduction | - truth

Answer 44

- knowing the truth tells us nothing about validity

Question 45

deduction | - sound argument

Answer 45

= a valid + has all true premises (good argument) | - will have a true conclusion as well

Question 46

deduction | - unsound argument

Answer 46

= invalid + one or more false premises or both - when one has a good argument (valid and true) but adds an unsound argument --> argument would be still unsound (such a premise should not be considered as part of the argument)

Question 47

induction

Answer 47

= an argument incorporating the claim is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true; if it is claimed to follow only probably - probabilistic reasoning - rely on the uniformity of nature (= future replicate the past)

Question 48

induction | - indicator words

Answer 48

= probably, improbably, plausible, implausible, likely, reasonable to conclude

Question 49

induction | - inductive argument forms

Answer 49

1. predictions = from our knowledge of past to a claim about the future 2. argument from analogy = depends on existence of an analogy, similarity between two things or state of affairs 3. generalisation = from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group; statistics 4. argument from authority = concludes something is true because a presumed expert or witness has said it is 5. argument based on signs = from knowledge of a sign to claim about the thing or situation that the sign symbolises 6. causal inference = from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect or vice versa

Question 50

strength/weakness

Answer 50

- results from the probabilistic support the premises give to the conclusion

Question 51

strong inductive argument

Answer 51

= argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true

Question 52

weak inductive argument

Answer 52

= argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises even though it is claimed to

Question 53

induction | - cogent argument

Answer 53

= strong + all true premises | - premises must meet the total evidence requirement (= premises do not leave out important factors)

Question 54

induction | - uncogent argument

Answer 54

= do not meet the criteria for a cogent argument | - weak + one or more false premises + fails to meet the total evidence requirement or any combination

Question 55

difference between strong inductive + valid deductive arguments

Answer 55

1) if the conclusion of deductive arguments is true independently of the premises, the argument is still considered valid 2) if the conclusion of an inductive argument is probably true independently of the premises, the argument is weak

Question 56

valid argument form (deduction)

Answer 56

As are included in the Bs, Bs are included in the Cs --> then As must necessarily be included in the Cs all A are B all B are C --> all A are C

Question 57

substitution instance

Answer 57

= uniformly substituting terms or statement in place of the letters in an argument form - every substation instance of a valid form is a valid argument --> NOT that every substitution instance of an invalid form is an invalid argument - counterexample = substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion

Question 58

counterexample method

Answer 58

= isolate the form of an argument --> construct a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion - proves the form invalid, which in turn proves the argument invalid - -> must be known or suspected to be invalid

Question 59

multilayered arguments

Answer 59

= argument in which reasons/objections have drawn out new reasons/objections

Question 60

rebuttal

Answer 60

= when a reason is followed by an objection 1) counterargument to a premise 2) counterargument to a conclusion

Question 61

rebuttal | 1) counterargument to a premise

Answer 61

= shows that the reason's contention is false | - attacks content of the premise

Question 62

rebuttal | 2) counterargument to a conclusion

Answer 62

= shows that the contention does not provide enough proof to support the conclusion - attacks the argument (link between claim and reason)

Question 63

refutation

Answer 63

= counterargument is itself rejected within an argument - if the second objection correct --> ignore first objection 1) refutation of a premise 2) refutation of a conclusion

Question 64

complex arguments | - pyramid rule

Answer 64

= a well-structured argument has a pyramidal shape - the higher up the argument, the more general and abstract it should be - when two arguments are placed on the same level, they should have the same level of abstraction

Question 65

complex arguments | - MECE rule

Answer 65

= mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive = there must be no overlap or gaps in any group of reasons/objections 1) mutually exclusive = within each group, the reasons/objections should be different from one another 2) collectively exhaustive = all conceivable arguments that are relevant to the claim are brought to bear, leaving no gaps in the argument tree