PHI10003 Study Guide - Final Guide: Swinburne University Of Technology, Critical Thinking, Ad Hominem

178 views19 pages
Department
Course
Critical Thinking - PHI10003
Semester Notes
Samantha Gillam - 101611652!
Swinburne University of Technology!
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 19 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
Arguments
An argument is a piece of reasoning which contains a conclusion which is supported by
premises. The purpose of an argument is to rationally justify its main claim (the conclusion) by
giving evidence or justifying reasons (the argument’s premises) to support it.!
FAIRNESS IN REASONING
Critical thinking requires fairness in reasoning: we need to consider the writer’s or speaker’s
intention. If the speaker/writer intended to justify a claim by giving justifying reasons to support it,
then what they are oering is an argument – even if it is a very weak, unconvincing one. The
criterion of fairness must guide both our analysis and our evaluation of the argument.!
ARGUMENTS VERSUS NON-ARGUMENTS
Inference indicators refer to the fact that sometimes arguers use “clue words” to help us identify
their conclusion or their premises.!
Example —!
“Since eggs contain cholesterol, and cholesterol can cause strokes and heart attacks, it follows
that eating more than one egg a day is probably dangerous.” !
“It follows that” is a conclusion indicator. What are some other conclusion-indicator words? !
“Since” is a premise indicator. !
It is still important to remember that what makes a passage an argument is the author’s intention
to justify a claim by supporting it with evidence (justifying reasons). If this was the author’s
intention, then even if there are no inference-indicators, it is still an argument.!
Explanations are dierent to arguments as the author is not trying justify a claim. The author is
assuming that we will already accept the statement (and so no justification is needed); instead,
the author explains why, so that we will understand why.!
If you carefully consider what the author’s purpose or intention is, you won’t be tricked by the
word ‘because’ – you’ll be able to tell the dierence between the explanatory “because” and the
justifying “because” (the premise-indicator “because”). Luckily though, many of the other
inference-indicator words are much more reliable; for example: – “therefore”; “this proves that…”;
“the evidence is…”!
Analysing Arguments
2 STAGE PROCESS
Stage 1 is the understanding exactly what is the argument. This is the stage of argument
analysis. Fairness in reasoning demands that our analysis of the argument shows exactly what
the arguer intended.!
Stage 2 us argument evaluation where we consider how strong the argument is. Fairness
demands that our evaluation be thorough so that we are in a position to evaluate all parts of
exactly the argument the arguer intended.!
Standardisation!
Standardisation refers to when we aim to show the whole argument the arguer intended.!
So if the argument had any unstated - but nonetheless intended parts - we must include them in
our standardisation because it is still essential to evaluate all parts of the argument.!
Standardisation will show the “logical flow” (exact structure of support) that the arguer
intended.!
1. Identify the argument’s main conclusion!
2. Identify the premises !
3. Identify the premises!
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 19 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
Example —!
Rats who are occasionally rewarded for behaviour become frantically anxious to repeat the
behaviour to obtain a reward. It is well established that children respond to punishment in the
same way as animals do. We can see that inconsistent behaviour towards children is likely to
make them frantically anxious.!
1. Rats who are occasionally rewarded for behaviour become frantically anxious to repeat the
behaviour to obtain a reward. (premise 1)!
2. It is well established that children respond to punishment in the same way as animals do
(premise 2)!
3. Inconsistent behaviour towards children is likely to make them frantically anxious (conclusion/
claim)!
STANDARDISATION OF ARGUMENTS WITH UNSTATED PARTS
Example —!
“The bigger the burger, the better the burger. The burgers are bigger at Burger King”.!
Standardisation:!
1. The bigger the burger, the better the burger!
2. The burgers are bigger at burger king!
3. The burgers are BETTER at Burger King (we must underline the number of the unstated part)!
REVIEW OF STANDARDISATION STEPS
1. Identify the overall conclusion!
2. Work progressively back from the conclusion!
3. Write out each statement in a self-contained format, omitting background information!
4. Number every statement (this makes it easy to refer to them later on). It’s best to number them
in order that they appearing the original passage!
5. When necessary supply missing statements that the arguer clearly intended!
STANDARDISING ARGUMENTS THAT CONTAIN SUB-ARGUMENTS
Some arguments contain both a main conclusion and a sub-conclusion.!
Example —!
1. (A computer cannot cheat in a game), because!
2. (Cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win)!
3. (A computer cannot deliberately break rules) because!
4. (It has no freedom of action)!
The first because tells us that 2 is a premise supporting 1 - so 1 must be a conclusion. The
second because tells us that 4 is a premise supporting , so must be a conclusion. (1 is the main
conclusion and 3 is a sub-conclusion).!
Standardisation: !
4. A computer has no freedom of action!
3. A computer cannot deliberately break rules!
2. Cheating means deliberately breaking rules in order to win!
Therefore,!
1. A computer cannot cheat in a game!
We use therefore to indicate the main conclusion, and thus to state the sub-conclusion.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 19 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

An argument is a piece of reasoning which contains a conclusion which is supported by premises. The purpose of an argument is to rationally justify its main claim (the conclusion) by giving evidence or justifying reasons (the argument"s premises) to support it. Critical thinking requires fairness in reasoning: we need to consider the writer"s or speaker"s intention. If the speaker/writer intended to justify a claim by giving justifying reasons to support it, then what they are o ering is an argument even if it is a very weak, unconvincing one. The criterion of fairness must guide both our analysis and our evaluation of the argument. Inference indicators refer to the fact that sometimes arguers use clue words to help us identify their conclusion or their premises. Since eggs contain cholesterol, and cholesterol can cause strokes and heart attacks, it follows that eating more than one egg a day is probably dangerous.

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

Related textbook solutions

Related Documents

Related Questions