emailed_notes - Further clarifications about cogency:...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

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

Unformatted text preview: Further clarifications about cogency: Cogent arguments are invalid, but still well-formed (remember, well-formed are either valid or cogent) There can be degrees of cogency, that’s to say that some cogent arguments can be “better” than others (e.g. an argument with the word ‘most’ is going to be better than one with the word ‘some’). Feldman gives some patterns of cogency, but you can’t depend on that alone. You have to use interpretative skill to see if the premises really do provide a probably reason for the conclusion to follow. If you see the word ‘most’, the argument is MOST OFTEN not intended to be tested for validity, but it’s still a candidate for cogency. Tricky Cases Things aren’t always going to be spelled out pretty when you’re reconstructing arguments, so you have to look for premise and conclusion indicators. A good, but not arguments, so you have to look for premise and conclusion indicators....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/07/2010 for the course PHIL PHIL 001 taught by Professor Dr.mc. during the Spring '10 term at Simon Fraser.

Page1 / 2

emailed_notes - Further clarifications about cogency:...

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