cphl-214-exam-review-notes.pdf - lOMoARcPSD|4899380 CPHL...

This preview shows page 1 - 5 out of 12 pages.

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university CPHL 214 Exam Review Notes Critical Thinking I (Ryerson University) Downloaded by Bob Smith ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4899380
CPHL214 Exam Review Lecture 2 Standardizing Arguments - Standardize: identify the premises and conclusion and then rewrite the argument in a format that makes the structure clear to the reader. Background information is often important but not necessary for understanding the structure of an argument, so for our purposes it can be left out We also include sub-arguments - Steps for Standardizing arguments: 1. Identify the argument 2. Identify the conclusion and the premises 3. Leave out superfluous (extra) material 4. Leave out emotional or personal phrases like, “I find it hard to believe that … ,” 5. Number the premises and conclusion in order and set them out 6. Check to make sure that the premises are unambiguous 7. Identify and include any sub-arguments Sub-arguments: - A sub-argument will be necessary whenever a given claim is not self-supporting - A sub-argument forces the hearer to consider all of what you say, rather than just the final argument Lecture 3 - Cogency: the quality of it being clear, logical and convincing ARG : - acceptable, rational, and good grounds 1 Downloaded by Bob Smith ([email protected]yahoo.com) lOMoARcPSD|4899380
Rationally acceptable premises ( A ) premises are relevant to the conclusion ® together the premises provide good reason to accept the conclusion ( G ) - Four basic ways that you can know that the premises are relevant to and good grounds: 1. Deductive entailment or validity: when the premises are true, the conclusion must be true Example: All university students have to buy textbooks. Genele is in her second year at Ryerson. Therefore, Genele has bought textbooks. 2. Conductive support: a number of distinct claims converge to support the argument’s conclusion; they work separately to one end ( WE DON’T NEED TO KNOW ) 3. Inductive support: on the basis of a set of observations, we infer that all or most of the objects or events of the same type will have that feature Example: All the students I have met who have graduated from school X got good grades in mathematics. So, probably, All students who have graduated from school X got good grades in mathematics 4. Analogic support: draw a conclusion about one thing on the basis of comparison of that thing to another. Lecture 4 Accepting a premise: - Guidelines for accepting a premise: 1. Supported by a cogent sub-argument: evidence has been supplied within the whole argument that has a reasonable conclusion. Since that conclusion is the premise we are evaluating, we can say that it is acceptable 2 Downloaded by Bob Smith ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4899380
2. Supported by a cogent argument elsewhere: a premise can be based on an argument made in some other place, even by some other person 3. Known to be true a priori: this term simply means that you do not need first- hand experience to know this or that point to be true.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture