CHAPTER 1: BASIC CONCEPTS

Logic: The science that evaluates arguments Argument: A group of statements comprising one or more premises and one conclusion To distinguish premises from conclusion, look for:

Indicator words (hence, therefore, since, because, etc.) An inferential relation among the statements
Not all groups of statements are arguments. To distinguish arguments from nonarguments, look for:

Indicator words (hence, since, etc.) An inferential relation among the statements Typical kinds of nonarguments (warnings, reports, expository passages, etc.)
The most problematic kinds of nonarguments:

Expository passages (Is the topic sentence proved by the other statements?) Illustrations (Could the passage be an argument from an example?) Explanations (Could the explanandum also be a conclusion?)
Conditional statements express the relation between sufficient conditions and necessary conditions:

A is a suffi cient condition for B: The occurrence of A is all that is needed for the occurrence
of B.

A is a necessary condition for B: A cannot occur without the occurrence of B.

Arguments are traditionally divided into deductive and inductive:

Deductive argument: The conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises. Inductive argument: The conclusion is claimed to follow probably from the premises.
To distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, look for:

Special indicator phrases (it necessarily follows that, it probably follows that, etc.) The actual strength of the inferential relation between premises and conclusion Typical forms or styles of argumentation:

Deductive forms: Arguments based on mathematics, arguments from definition, and categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms Inductive forms: Predictions, arguments from analogy, generalizations, arguments from authority, arguments based on signs, and causal inferences

Evaluating an argument (either deductive or inductive) involves two steps:

Evaluating the link between premises and conclusion

 Evaluating the truth of the premises

Deductive arguments are valid, invalid, sound, or unsound.

Valid: The conclusion actually follows from the premises. Sound: The argument is valid and has all true premises.
Inductive arguments are strong, weak, cogent, or uncogent.

Strong: The conclusion actually follows from the premises. Cogent: The argument is strong and has all true premises.
The validity of a deductive argument is determined by the arguments form. An invalid form allows for a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. Counterexample method: Is used to prove invalidity. Consists in identifying the form of a given invalid argument and producing a substitution instance having true premises and a false conclusion. This proves the form invalid, which proves the given argument invalid. The structure of longer arguments can be disclosed by a diagramming method. Four basic argument patterns:

Vertical pattern Horizontal pattern Conjoint premises Multiple conclusion

CHAPTER 2: LANGUANGE: MEANING AND DEFINITION
Linguistic expressions can have different kinds of meaning:

Cognitive meaning: Conveys information Emotive meaning: Expresses or evokes feelings

Statements having emotive meaning often make value claims. When such statements occur in arguments, the value claims should be disengaged from the emotive terminology and expressed as separate premises. Cognitive meanings can be defective in two ways:

Vagueness: The meaning is blurred. Ambiguity: More than one clearly distinct meaning is possible.
A term is a word or phrase that can serve as the subject of a statement. Terms include:

Proper names (Napoleon, North Dakota, etc.) Common names (animal, house, etc.) Descriptive phrases (author of Hamlet, books in my library, etc.)
Terms can have different kinds of meaning:

 Intensional meaning (or intension): The attributes that the term connotes Extensional meaning (or extension): The members of the class that the term denotes
Terms that refer to nonexistent things have empty extension. A definition is a word or group of words that assigns a meaning to a word or group of words:

Definiendum: The word or group of words being defined Definiens: The word or group of words that does the defining
Definitions can serve different purposes, so there are different kinds of definitions:

Stipulative definitions assign a meaning to a word when it first comes into use. Lexical definitions report the meaning a word has within a community of users. Precising definitions reduce the vagueness of a word. Theoretical definitions appeal to a theory to characterize whatever the term denotes. Persuasive definitions influence the attitudes of the community of users regarding whatever the word denotes.
Intensional meaning and extensional meaning provide a basis for constructing definitions:

Extensional definitions assign a meaning by identifying the things the word denotes:

Demonstrative definitions point to these things. Enumerative definitions name individuals that the word denotes. Definitions by subclass identify subclasses of these things.

Intensional definitions assign a meaning by identifying the attributes the word connotes:

Synonymous definitions equate the word being defined with another word that connotes the same attributes. Etymological definitions disclose the words ancestry. Operational definitions specify experimental procedures for determining whether the word applies to a certain thing. Definitions by genus and difference identify a genus term and one or more difference words that, when combined, convey the meaning of the definiendum.

Lexical definitions are governed by eight rules. They should:

Conform to the standards of proper grammar. Be neither too broad nor too narrow. Not be negative when they can be affirmative. Avoid affective terminology.
CHAPTER 3: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Convey the essential meaning of the word being defined. Avoid circularity. Avoid figurative, obscure, vague, or ambiguous language. Indicate the context to which the definiens pertains.

Fallacy: A mistake in an argument that arises from defective reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. There are two kinds of fallacy:

Formal fallacy: Detectable by analyzing the form of an argument Informal fallacy: Detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument
Fallacies of Relevance: The premises are not relevant to the conclusion:

Appeal to Force: Arguer threatens the reader/listener. Appeal to Pity: Arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener. Appeal to the People: Arguer incites a mob mentality (direct form) or appeals to our desire for security, love, or respect
(indirect form).

Argument against the Person: Arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing the opponent (ad
hominem abusive), presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or she does (ad hominen circumstantial), or by presenting the opponent as a hypocrite (tu quoque).

Note: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers.

Accident: A general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Straw Man: Arguer distorts an opponents argument and then attacks the distorted argument.
Note: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers.

Missing the Point: Arguer draws a conclusion different from the one supported by the premises.
Note: Do not cite this fallacy if another fallacy fits.

Red herring: Arguer leads the reader/listener off the track

Fallacies of Weak Induction: The premises may be relevant to the conclusion, but they supply insufficient support for the conclusion:

Appeal to Unqualified Authority: Arguer cites an untrustworthy authority. Appeal to Ignorance: Premises report that nothing is known or proved about some subject, and then a conclusion is
drawn about that subject.

Hasty Generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample. False Cause: Conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection. This fallacy has four forms: post hoc
ergo propter hoc, non causa pro causa, oversimplifi ed cause, and the gamblers fallacy.

Slippery Slope: Conclusion depends on an unlikely chain reaction of causes. Weak Analogy: Conclusion depends on a defective analogy (similarity).
Fallacies of Presumption: The premises presume what they purport to prove:

Begging the Question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out a key
premise, restating the conclusion as a premise, or reasoning in a circle.

Complex Question: Multiple questions are concealed as a single question.

 False Dichotomy: An either . . . or . . . premise hides additional alternatives. Suppressed Evidence: Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.
Fallacies of Ambiguity: The conclusion depends on some kind of linguistic ambiguity:

Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase. Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous statement made by someone other
than the arguer. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy: A defective argument appears to be good as a result of its being grammatically similar to another argument that is not fallacious:

Composition: An attribute is wrongly transferred from the parts to the whole. Division: An attribute is wrongly transferred from the whole to the parts.
Fallacies that occur in real-life argumentation may be hard to detect:

They may not exactly fi t the pattern of the named fallacies. They may involve two or more fallacies woven together in a single passage.
Three factors underlie the commission of fallacies in real-life argumentation:

The intent of the arguer (the arguer may intend to mislead someone). Mental carelessness combined with unchecked emotions. Unexamined presuppositions in the arguers worldview.
CHAPTER 4: CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
Categorical Proposition: A proposition that relates two classes (or categories). Standard form categorical propositions occur in four forms and are identified by letter names:

A: All S are P. I: Some S are P. Quantifier (all, no, some) Copula (are, are not)
The quality of a categorical proposition:

E: No S are P. O: Some S are not P. Subject Term Predicate Term

Every standard-form categorical proposition has four components:

Affirmative (All S are P, Some S are P.)

 Negative (No S are P, Some S are not P.)

The quantity of a categorical proposition:

Universal (All S are P, No S are P.) Particular (Some S are P, Some S are not P.)
The subject and predicate terms are distributed if the proposition makes an assertion about every member of the class denoted by the term; otherwise, undistributed:

A: Subject term is distributed. I: Neither term is distributed.

E: Subject and predicate terms are distributed. O: Predicate term is distributed.

Universal (A and E) propositions allow for two different interpretations:

Aristotelian: Universal propositions about existing things have existential import. Boolean: Universal propositions have no existential import.
The modern square of opposition is a diagram that represents necessary inferences from the Boolean standpoint:

A and O propositions contradict each other. E and I propositions contradict each other.
The content of categorical propositions may be represented by two-circle Venn diagrams:

Shading an area indicates that the area is empty. Entering an X in an area means that the area is not empty.
Using Venn diagrams to test an immediate inference:

Enter the content of the premise and conclusion in separate Venn diagrams. See if the content of the conclusion diagram is contained in the premise diagram.
Three operations that sometimes yield logically equivalent results:

Conversion: Switch S and P. Logically equivalent results for E, I Obversion: Change the quality, replace P with its term complement. Logically equivalent results for A, E, I, O. Contraposition: Switch S and P, replace S and P with term complements. Logically equivalent results for A, O.
Two formal fallacies may occur when these operations are used to derive conclusions:

Illicit conversion: Performing conversion on an A or O premise Illicit contraposition: Performing contraposition on an E or I premise

The traditional square of opposition applies to categorical propositions when the Aristotelian standpoint is adopted and the subject term refers to existing things:

Contrary: Holds between A and E. At least one is false. Subcontrary: Holds between I and O. At least one is true. Subalternation: Holds between A and I and between E and O. Truth flows downward and falsity fl ows upward. Contradiction: Holds as in the modern square.
Three formal fallacies may occur when the traditional square is used to derive conclusions:

Illicit Contrary: Results from an incorrect application of Contrary. Illicit Subcontrary: Results from an incorrect application of Subcontrary. Illicit Subalternation: Results from an incorrect application of Subalternation.
Existential fallacy: Occurs when Contrary, Subcontrary, or Subalternation are used on premises whose subject terms refer to nonexistent things. Venn diagrams may be modifi ed to apply to the Aristotelian standpoint:

For A and E: Enter a circled X in the unshaded part of the subject circle. The circled X represents the temporary assumption of existence. May be used to prove the traditional square and test immediate inferences.
Translation: Propositions not in standard from may be put into standard form.

Translation must have a proper quantifier, subject term, copula, predicate term. Translate singular propositions by using a parameter. Translate adverbs and pronouns by using persons, places, things, times. For A propositions:

Language following if, the only, and W words goes in the subject term. Language following only if, only, none but, none except, and no . . . except goes in the predicate term.