SECTION 1 CRITICAL THINKING D265 WGU |57 QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS.

What is meant by validity or strength of an argument? Generally, Strong Arguments are ones that are convincing. And an argument is valid if the premises(if true) provide proof of the conclusion. What are the different types of inferences? - Deduction - Induction -Abduction Inference A conclusion one can draw from the presented details. deduction forming a general conclusion based on specific observations Induction forming a specific conclusion based on general premise. Abduction reasoning rules out explanations until most plausible remains truth A proposition that accurately represents reality. validity In a good deductive argument structure, when true premises make the conclusion necessarily true. invalidity One or two of the premises are false, thus making the conclusion false. Soundness The deductive argument is valid, and all premises are true premises. Unsoundness When the argument is invalid or the premises are false. How is truth connected to propositions? The relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact. If a proposition is true, then the conclusion is true, but if it's false then it's false. valid argument form an argument form in which every substitution instance is a valid (true) argument invalid argument form an argument form that has some invalid (false) substitution instances Differentiate between truth, strength, and cogency. - A strong argument can have a false conclusion even if it starts with true premises (strong arguments only make the conclusion probable, not certain). - cogent argument must have true premises. Cogency is strength plus true premises. Cogency: In a strong inductive argument, all premises are true. All True Premises + Strong Inductive Support = Cogency Argument Strength of an Argument In the inductive argument, true premises make the conclusion probably true. (but not necessarily a guarantee, but the premises are supportive) Cogency In a strong inductive argument, all premises are true. Fallacy a type of bad argument. Formal Fallacy a logical error that occurs in the form or structure of an argument; it is restricted to deductive arguments informal fallacy a mistake in reasoning that occurs in ordinary language and is different from an error in the form or structure of arguments The Fallacy Fallacy You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. the fallacy fallacy example Recognizing that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day. types of informal fallacies - Ad Hominem - Appeal to Ignorance - Begging the Question - Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition - Equivocation - False Dilemma - Faulty Analogy - Inconsistency - Irrelevant Authority - Is-Ought - Ought Is - Questionable Cause - Red Herring - Slippery Slope - Straw Person - Two Wrongs - Unwarranted Generalization Unwarranted Generalization Fallacy This fallacy occurs when we we make a generalization on the basis of insufficient evidence. Two Wrongs Fallacy This fallacy can occur by suggesting "if others are doing it, I can too". Irrelevant Authority Fallacy A fallacy when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Is-Ought A fallacy that assumes that just because something is a certain way, it ought to be that way. Ought-Is A fallacy when you assume that the way you want things to be is the way they are. questionable cause a fallacy that occurs when a speaker alleges something that does not relate to or produce the outcome claimed in the argument Red Herring A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion Slippery Slope A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented Straw Person Distorting our opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. ad hominem a fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute Appeal to Ignorance a fallacy based on the assumption that whatever has not been proven false must be true begging the question A fallacy in which a claim is based on evidence or support that is in doubt. Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition A fallacy where assuming a required condition will suffice the conclusion. Equivocation Fallacy when a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. It is an illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning. False Dilemma A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in fact more options are available. faulty analogy a fallacy that occurs when an analogy compares two things that are not comparable Inconsistency Fallacy has two propositions which contradict each other What is crtical thinking? - Being curious and thinking creatively - Separating the thinker from the position - Knowing oneself enough to avoid biases and errors of thought - Having intellectual honesty, humility, and charity [being honest about what we know and how we know it, what evidence we have and what questions are not yet settled] - Understanding arguments, reasons, and evidence Propositions Statements that can be true or false. Non-Propositions Sentences that are not statements about matters of fact (or fiction). They do not make a claim that can be true or false. Simple propositions Have no internal logical structure, meaning whether they are true or false does not depend on whether part of them is true or false. They are simply true or false on their own. Complex propositions have internal logical structure, meaning they are composed of simple propositions. Whether they are true or false depends on whether their parts are true or false. Argument Anatomy Premise + Premise = Conclusion Premise the claims, evidence, ideas, and so forth intended to support the conclusion. Conclusion The conclusion is the claim that the whole argument is intended to support or demonstrate or prove. Arguments can go wrong in only two ways: - Bad inferential structure - False premise