1305,+Basic+Logical+Concepts,+with+answers+at+end - Phil....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Phil. 1305/Carson Basic Logical Concepts Logic is the study of the principles and methods by which correct reasoning is distinguished from incorrect reasoning. The process of reasoning is displayed in arguments . An argument is a sequence of two or more propositions (or statements) of which one is designated the conclusion and all the others are premises. The conclusion of an argument is the proposition which is being supported, the premises are the propositions which provide evidence or give reasons to support the conclusion. To analyze an argument, must one first isolate it from irrelevant matter in the text and put it in standard form , which simply means that one lists the premises followed by the conclusion. Indicator words can be helpful in identifying the elements of an argument and in separating premises from the conclusion. There are two main types of arguments, and “good” and “bad” arguments are found within both types. A deductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. (Note: Not all deductive arguments fulfill this guarantee, as we will see.) In other words, IF the premises are true, the conclusion is supposed to be true as well. It is helpful to remember the “iffy” (or hypothetical) nature of deductive arguments: the definition claims only that IF the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. (Or, stated another way, it could never be the case that the premises are true and the conclusion false.) In contrast an inductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the truth of the premises supports the conclusion with some degree of probability . In other words, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. If the probability is high and the evidence adequate, the argument is inductively strong . If the probability is weak or lacking, the argument is inductively weak . Most of the arguments encountered in everyday life are inductive (a more technical way of saying “life is risky”). Scientific laws are also based on inductive observation and generalization. Deductive arguments have historically been of special interest to philosophers because of their claim to yield conclusions which are true and can be known with certainty. However, as mentioned above, not all deductive arguments deliver on this claim, and are therefore not good arguments. Let us see why this is the case. Validity
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/21/2010 for the course 22 22 taught by Professor 22 during the Spring '10 term at American Academy of Art.

Page1 / 4

1305,+Basic+Logical+Concepts,+with+answers+at+end - Phil....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online