Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A Users Manual
Chapter 6
Preparing to Evaluate Arguments
Preparing to Evaluate Arguments
Categorical
Deductive argument Valid/invalid
Truth-functional Sound/unsound
Reasoning argument
Analogical argument
Inductive Inductive Strong/weak
generalization Cogent/uncogent
Reasoning Causal argument
Types of Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning: an argument in
which the arguer attempts to demonstrate
that the truth of the conclusion necessarily
follows from the premises.
Inductive Reasoning: an argument in which
the arguer attempts to demonstrate that
the truth of the conclusion probably follows
from the premises.
Deductive or Inductive?
Every philosophy class I have taken has been
fun. Therefore, this philosophy class will be
fun.
Categorical
Deductive argument Valid/invalid
Truth-functional Sound/unsound
Reasoning argument
Analogical argument
Inductive Inductive Strong/weak
generalization Cogent/uncogent
Reasoning Causal argument
Writing a Complete Analysis
Step 1: Write a Basic Analysis of the passage.
Identify the passage.
Analyze the passage.
Step 2: If it is an argument, determine whether it
commits a fallacy.
Identify the fallacy, and explain how it is committed.
Step 3: If it is a non-fallacious argument, diagram
it.
Verify that your diagram is consistent with your Basic
Analysis.
Writing a Complete Analysis
Step 4: Identify the kind of argument.
If the argument is deductive, identify it as a
categorical argument or a truth-functional
argument.
If the argument is inductive, identify it as an
analogical argument, an inductive generalization,
or a causal argument.
If the government of the United States is really
built on the notion that all people are
fundamentally equal, then every person would
be equally treated under the law. Its clear
that not everyone is treated equally, because
crimes committed by wealthier individuals
result in much lighter sentences than those
committed by poor people. So, we must
conclude that the government of the United
States is not really built on the idea of
fundamental equality among persons.
This passage contains an argument. The issue is whether the
government of the United States is built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The conclusion is that the government of
the United States is not really built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The first premise is that if the government
of the United States is really built on the notion that all people are
fundamentally equal, then every person would be equally treated
under the law. The second premise is that not everyone is treated
equally under the law in the United States.
This passage contains a subargument. The intermediate
conclusion is that not everyone is treated equally under the law in
the United States. The premise is that crimes committed by
wealthier individuals result in much lighter sentences than those
committed by poor people.
If the government of the United States is really built on the
notion that all people are fundamentally equal, then every
person would be equally treated under the law. Its clear that
not everyone is treated equally, because crimes
committed by wealthier individuals result in much lighter
sentences than those committed by poor people. So, we must
conclude that the government of the United States is not
really built on the idea of fundamental equality among
persons.
+
This passage contains an argument. The issue is whether the
government of the United States is built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The conclusion is that the government of
the United States is not really built on the idea of fundamental
equality among persons. The first premise is that if the government
of the United States is really built on the notion that all people are
fundamentally equal, then every person would be equally treated
under the law. The second premise is that not everyone is treated
equally under the law in the United States.
This passage contains a subargument. The intermediate
conclusion is that not everyone is treated equally under the law in
the United States. The premise is that crimes committed by
wealthier individuals result in much lighter sentences than those
committed by poor people.
This passage is a deductive truth-functional argument.