LOGIC NOTES 1 DEDUCTIVE REASONING An argument tries to convince you that he claim is true by providing reasons/evidence.

. An explanation tells you why-\ the claim is true by citing causes of phenomenon described. Conclu ion is the claim attempting to be convinced, premi e are the reasons cited in favour of the conclusion. Deductive and inductive reasoning are the two main types of argument. A tan!ar!i ation identifies premises/conclusions, omits thick descriptions, writes thin descriptions into premises/conclusions (ie. Premise 1, !. "ake the implicit e#plicit with an asterisk. $e faithful, use best light, and balance the detail. De!ucti"e argument % whether its good or bad depends on the type, the key to it is structure, not content. An argument is "ali! if its premises are truth preserving, and given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion is unavoidable/automatic. A good deductive argument is valid. &alidity and truth do not have that much to do with eachother. An argument is oun! if its deductively valid and has true premises. $ut sound arguments may still fail to convince1. 'he three types of deductive arguments are conditional arguments, non-conditional arguments and categorical arguments. Deductive reasons from one or more general premises to a logically certain conclusion. 1 Rational Co#erence ( )e can think of our beliefs as holding together as a coherent web. A new belief to the web (web of beliefs! needs to cohere * otherwise we find it hard to accept it. +onditional Arguments have two important parts * a part that follows ,i$-, and the part that follows ,t#en-. 'he part that follows ,if- is called the antece!ent and the part that follows ,then- is called the con e%uent. Antecedent and conse.uent are affirmed in the premises and conclusion. &o!u 'onen (valid! * /f 0 then 1. 0. 'herefore 1. (aka Affirming the Anticedent! &o!u Tollen (valid! * /f 0 then 1. 2ot 1. 'herefore not 0. (aka Denying the +onse.uent! Den(ing t#e Antice!ent (invalid! * /f 0 then 1. 2ot 0. 'herefore not 1. A$$irming t#e Con e%uent (invalid! * /f 0 then 1. 1. 'herefore 0. 2on(+onditional Deductive Arguments% Re!uctio a! A) ur!um (valid! 'aking A to be true for e#ample. Absurdity follows. 3g Aristotle. Di *uncti"e S(llogi m (valid) * A or $. 2ot A. 'herefore not $. +ategorical Arguments% ('here are 14, here5s 6!. 7or instance, if we determine that every ob8ect in one category is also included in another second category, then we know that a particular ob8ect from the first is also from the second, and so on. (9se circle charts to help! +AR+ARA (valid! * All 0s are 1s. All 1s are :s. ;o, all 0s are :s. +AROCO (valid! * All 0s are 1s. ;ome :s are not 1s. ;ome :s are not 0s. CA&ENES (valid! * All 0s are 1s. 2o 1 is :. ;o no : is 0. )e never define arguments as true or false. ;tatements are true or false. Arguments are valid or inductively strong. A deductive argument aims at validity and an inductive argument aims at in!ucti"e trengt#. A deductively valid argument is one where the truth of the premises would make the conclusion certain< whereas a strong inductive argument is one where the truth of its premises would make the conclusion likely or probable. =hetorical ,allacie can be thought of as some common but basic problems with the rational core of an argument itself. 'here are 1>>s. A fallacy is something of a catch all term for what happens when arguments go bad. http%//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?ist@of@fallacies Popular% Ad hominem, Ad hom circumstantial varient, Ad hom 'u .uo.ue variant, +onflating morality and legality, +onflating morality and nature, ;lippery ;lope, ;trawman, =ed herring, Appeal to tradition, Appeal to ma8ority, Appeal to pity, Appeal to force, Appeal to authority, 7alse dilemma, $egging the .uestion.