Term
| Introduction: What does it mean to “give an argument”? |
|
Definition
| To offer a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| What’s the first step in making an argument? |
|
Definition
| Asking yourself what you want to prove. |
|
|
Term
| The statements that give your reasons are called? (sec. 1) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Be able to identify premises and conclusions in paragraphs. |
|
Definition
A premise is a statement that gives your reason for your position.
A conclusion is final position that your premises leave you at. |
|
|
Term
| Be able to identify weak premises (sec. 3), |
|
Definition
| A weak premise is the result of unreliable sources for your position, or too broad a statement. |
|
|
Term
| abstract, vague, and general terms (sec. 4), |
|
Definition
| “Avoid abstract, ague, and general terms. “We hiked for hours in the sun.” is a hundred times better than “It was an extended period of laborious exertion.” Be concise too. Airy elaboration just loses everyone in a fog of words.” |
|
|
Term
| loaded language (sec. 5), |
|
Definition
| “Offer actual reasons; don’t just play on overtones of words. likewise don’t try to make your argument look good by using emotionally loaded words.” |
|
|
Term
| Use consistent terms (sec. 6), |
|
Definition
| Don’t describe the same things a million different ways or else you will make is sound like you’re talking about a bunch of different things rather than just one thing. |
|
|
Term
| instances of equivocation (sec. 7). |
|
Definition
| Stick to one meaning for each term. Don’t commit the fallacy of equivocation. A good way to avoid equivocation is to carefully define any key terms when you introduce them: them be sure to use them only as you’ve defined them. |
|
|
Term
| Arguments by example are what? |
|
Definition
| Generalization. By showing multiple examples of something you are proving it by demonstrating it to be a general rule (reasoning by induction). |
|
|
Term
| By what principles should such arguments be scrutinized? Be able to apply Weston’s “rules” to example arguments that may be on the test. |
|
Definition
| Use more than one example. Use representative examples. Make sure you that you know the background of your examples. View statistics critically. Consider counterexamples. |
|
|
Term
| How does an argument by analogy work? |
|
Definition
| By rather than arguing by multiple examples you argue from one specific example to another, reasoning that because two examples are alike in many ways, they are also alike in one further specific way. |
|
|
Term
| What is a relevant similarity? Be able to scrutinize arguments from analogy, by Weston’s rules. |
|
Definition
| Relevant similarity is making sure that the premise is true and that it is similar enough to the example you are using. |
|
|
Term
| Why do we need arguments from authority? |
|
Definition
| Because no one can be an expert through direct experience on everything there is to know. Instead we must rely on others –better situated people, organizations, surveys, or reference works- to tell us much of what we need to know. |
|
|
Term
| What rules does Weston offer for criticizing an argument from authority? Be able to apply these principles to arguments from authority. |
|
Definition
| Seek sources that are qualified to make the statements they make. Seek impartial sources, people or sources who do not have a stake in the immediate issue, who have primary interest in accuracy. Cross check your sources. Personal attacks do not disqualify a source. Use internet with care. |
|
|
Term
| What is rule 18? How is it applied? Does the argument explain how cause leads to effect? |
|
Definition
| Causal arguments start with correlations: the evidence for a claim about causes is usually a correlation –a regular association- between two events or kinds of events. E.g. Your grade in class and where you sit in the room. |
|
|
Term
| What is rule 19? How is it applied? Does the conclusion propose the most likely cause? |
|
Definition
| Most events have many possible causes. Just finding a possible cause is not enough: you must go on to show that is it the most likely cause. Correlations may have alternative explanations: Arguments from correlation to cause are often compelling. However there is also a systematic difficulty with any such claim: the correlation may be explained in multiple ways. A correlation cannot simply be coincidental. Even when there is a connection, the correlation by itself does no establish the direction of the connection. Other causes may underlie and explain everything. Multiple or complex causes may be at work. |
|
|
Term
| What is rule 20? How is it applied? Correlated event are not necessarily related. |
|
Definition
| Some correlations are just coincidental. |
|
|
Term
| What is rule 21? How is it applied? Correlated events may have a common cause. |
|
Definition
| Some correlations are not relations between cause and effect but represent two effects of some other cause. |
|
|
Term
| What is rule 22? How is it applied? Either of two correlated events may cause the other. |
|
Definition
| Correlation does not establish the direction of causality. |
|
|
Term
| What is rule 23? How is it applied? Causes may be complex: |
|
Definition
| there may be more factors than you are aware of. |
|
|
Term
| What is a deductive argument? |
|
Definition
| A deductive argument is an argument which is structured in such a way that if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true too. (A valid argument.) |
|
|
Term
| How is a deductive argument different from a non-deductive one? |
|
Definition
| In a non-deductive arguments the conclusion unavoidably goes beyond the premises, whereas the conclusion of a valid deductive argument only makes explicit what is already contained in the premise. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If P then Q. (If a cow, then a mammal)
P (A cow)
Therefore, Q. (Therefore a mammal) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If P then Q. (If a cow, then a mammal)
Not Q. (Not a mammal)
Therefore not P. (Therefore not a cow) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If P then Q. (If a cow then a mammal)
If Q then R. (If a mammal, then an animal)
Therefore if P then R. (Therefore, if a cow then an animal) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P or Q. (A cow or a camel)
Not P. (Not a cow)
Therefore, Q. (Therefore a camel) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P or Q (A cow or a camel)
If P then R. (If a cow then it has hooves)
If Q then S. (If a camel then two toes)
Therefore, R or S. (Therefore, hooved or toed) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Establishing your conclusion by showing that the opposite leads to absurdity/to a contradictory or silly result. In consequence, there is nothing left but to accept the opposite. |
|
|
Term
| What are the two great fallacies? |
|
Definition
1) Drawing conclusions from too little evidence.
2) Overlooking alternatives. |
|
|
