🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

MODR 1730 Lecture : Reasoning about Social Issues

84 views3 pages
blackotter881
2 Nov 2011
School
York University
Department
Modes Of Reasoning
Course
MODR 1730
Professor
Philip Mac Ewen

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Reasoning or argument is a type of discourse (spoken, written or signed) which tries to support a point by support a point by appealing to evidence. The most widely used discourse is informational discourse. A common example would be the internet which is an informational highway. The conclusion is the point that the argument is trying to prove. The premises is the evidence it appeals to. There is a negative connotation to the word argument ie. verbal aggression and/or fighting, but that is not the kind of argument we will be looking at for this course. Tests to determine which is the premise and which is the conclusion: Function test: determine the role that each plays in the reasoning or argument. Conclusion is the point the premises are trying to prove. Indicator word test: there are many words that give a hint whether the statement is a conclusion or premise.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

MODR 1730 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Critical Thinking
bluerabbit402
MODR 1730 Lecture 11: Reasoning about Social Issues 2.docx
bluerabbit402
MODR 1730 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Seat Belt
carmineferret734

Related Questions

For example, consider the following argument:
"Measles can't be cured by antibiotics, since Measles is caused by a virus, and antibiotics can't cure a viral infection."

We can see that the argument contains the word "since," which is a premise indicator. We know that what follows "since" will be the premises. We also know, through the process of elimination, that what precedes the word "since" is the conclusion. So my standardized argument will look like this:

1) Measles is caused by a virus. 2) Antibiotics can't cure a viral infection. therefore, 3) Measles can't be cured by antibiotics.

Now we can see the relationship of support between the premises and conclusion. We are asked to accept the conclusion, "Measles can't be cured by antibiotics," based on the two supporting premises. Notice that all of the premises and the conclusion are statements, that is, complete sentences that are either true or false. Also, notice that the premise indicator "since" has been omitted. We always omit premises and conclusion indicators when putting arguments into standard form and make sure that the components of our argument are statements, that is, complete sentences that are either true or false.

For credit on this assignment, do the following:

1) Put the following arguments into standard form:

a) "All dogs are carnivores, consequently, Max is a carnivore, for the reason that Max is a dog."

b) "Rebecca does not pray at the mosque, for she is not a Muslim and only Muslims pray at the mosque."

c) "To every existing thing God wills some good. Hence, since to love any thing is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists."

2) Create your own argument:

a) Construct an argument of your own using two different premise indicators and one conclusion indicator with the following conclusion: "Now, more than ever, everyone needs to take a class in logic."

b) Then put the argument into standard form.

1. Consider the following argument: All fish can swim. You are a fish. Therefore, you can swim. Which of the following best describes this argument?

A. It is valid but unsound.

B. It is valid and sound.

C. It is invalid and unsound.

D. It is inductively weak.

2. In a valid deductive argument: (circle the correct answer)

A. the premises must all be true.

B. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

C. the premises must be false if the conclusion is false.

D. it is impossible for the premises and the conclusion to be false together.

Briefly note the main points of Alan Goldman's argument in "The Refutation of Medical Paternalism." (Do not just identify the conclusion--identify the premises that support the conclusion.) What theoretical perspective do you think Goldman is adopting? What views does he reject? Explain your reasoning.