Study Guides (258,500)
CA (124,949)
Carleton (4,155)
PHIL (114)
PHIL 2003 (19)
Study Guide

PHIL 2003- Midterm Exam Guide - Comprehensive Notes for the exam ( 12 pages long!)

12 Pages
69 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHIL 2003
Professor
Iva Apostolova

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 12 pages of the document.
Waterloo
PHIL 2003
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Lecture 2
January 17, 2017
6:14 PM
Arguments may involve any subject matter
Circular arguments - arguments which go in circles (i.e loop)
Ex. I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were suppose to
live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live
forever.
Truth
The statement which constitute the argument can be true or false (arguments are never true or
false! Truth and falsehood are properties of the statements, not of the arguments!)
Arguments are deductive, inductive, valid, invalid, weak, and sound (statements can never be
strong, sound, valid, or invalid!)
Deductive arguments
Is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion while inductive arguments are
intended to provide only probable but not conclusive support
Valid/strong and invalid/weak arguments
Most philosophical arguments are deductive
Make general, universal claims
Ex. All dogs are animals, Benjie is a dog. Therefore, Benjie is an animal
Inductive arguments
If the argument is inductive, then we talk about inductive strong or inductively weak arguments
Strong inductive arguments can have conclusions which are not absolutely certain
Ex. Most birds can fly. Benjie is my green parrot. Therefore, its most probable that Benjie can fly.
Validity
Valid arguments. Validity in the technical sense refers to the structure of the deductive argument
not to its content. If the premises support the conclusion, then we have a (technically) valid
argument.
The premises, and the conclusion can be empirically true, or they can be empirically false. The
falsehood of the preises does’t ake the arguet ialid.
In deductively valid arguments, we can have true premises and a true conclusion, false premises
and a false conclusion, or false premises and a true conclusion.
However, if we have true premises, we have to get a true conclusion, otherwise deductive
argument is invalid.
Valid arguments can have this structure: T,T…=> T; T,F… => F; T,F… => F; F,F… => T;
Ex. Of a deductively valid argument with false premises and a false conclusion:
Ex.1 All dogs have flippers. All cats are dogs. Therefore, all cats have flippers.
Ex.2 All fish read Russian novels. Goldie is my gold fish. Therefore, Goldie reads Russian novels.
Ex. Of a deductively valid argument with false premises but true conclusion
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Ex.1 Benny, my dog, is a cat. All cats are mammals. Therefore, Benny is a mammal.
Ex.2 Toronto is the capital of Canada. Canada is in North America. Therefore, Toronto is in North
America.
Ex. Of a deductive valid argument with true premises and a true conclusion:
Ex.1 Benny is a dog. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, Benny is a mammal.
Ex.2 If abortion is taking a human life, then its murder. Abortion is taking of a human life.
Therefore, abortion is murder.
Ex of a deductive invalid or inductively weak argument
E.1 If ou do’t ear si goggles, ou a lose ou otat leses. Susa lost her otat
lenses. Therefore, Susan must have not have worn swim goggles.
Ex.2 If iva has horns, then she is mortal. Iva is mortal. Therefore, Iva has horns
Ex.3 Some drivers are drunk. Some flight attendants are not drunk. Therefore, some flight
attendants are no drivers.
Sound arguments
For an argument to be sound it has to have a valid structure, that is the premises must support the
conclusion, and they have to be empirically true.
Ex. Ottawa is the capital of Canada. Canada is in North America. Therefore, Ottawa is in North
America.
Chain argument
Things are hooked onto things in a certain way
EXERCISES:
Are the following examples arguments or not? And why?
1. Woke up. Fell out of bed. Dragged a comb across my hair.
2. Fred is a liar and untrustworthy. He's self-seeking and tiresome. Nobody wants to spend
time with him.
i. No should in this ex.
ii. Does not argue anything. For this to be a argument one must provide why nobody
should spend time with him
3. Sally will most probably show up here on Friday. She said shed arrive some time this week,
ad she has’t sho up so far
i. For an argument there should be a therefore i.e conclusion
ii. Conclusion can be at any point in any given argument
iii. Concussions are often in the beginning
4. Sally will show up here on Friday. Everyone will be glad to see her, ad she has’t ee for a
long time.
i. There is no dependence to the other statements / relation
ii. A bunch of statements which can be stated at any time
5. You think there is going to be an election soon. But whenever an election is imminent, the
government hires a lot of workers to pave the roads, and, as you can see, the roads are in
terrible shape and nobody's fixing them.
i. An argument with a missing conclusion
ii. Usually missing when the conclusion is obvious
Are the following arguments valid, invalid or sound? Why?
o Use method of elimination
Sound is unlikely, next eliminate invalid and see if the argument is valid.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
[PHIL 2003] Comprehensive winter guide including any lecture notes, textbook notes and exam guides.find more resources at oneclass.com Lecture 2 January 17, 2017 6:14 PM Arguments may involve any subject matter Circular arguments - arguments which go in circles (i.e loop) • Ex. I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were suppose to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever. Truth • The statement which constitute the argument can be true or false (arguments are never true or false! Truth and falsehood are properties of the statements, not of the arguments!) • Arguments are deductive, inductive, valid, invalid, weak, and sound (statements can never be strong, sound, valid, or invalid!) Deductive arguments • Is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion while inductive arguments are intended to provide only probable but not conclusive support • Valid/strong and invalid/weak arguments • Most philosophical arguments are deductive • Make general, universal claims • Ex. All dogs are animals, Benjie is a dog. Therefore, Benjie is an animal Inductive arguments • If the argument is inductive, then we talk about inductive strong or inductively weak arguments • Strong inductive arguments can have conclusions which are not absolutely certain • Ex. Most birds can fly. Benjie is my green parrot. Therefore, its most probable that Benjie can fly. Validity • Valid arguments. Validity in the technical sense refers to the structure of the deductive argument not to its content. If the premises support the conclusion, then we have a (technically) valid argument. • The premises, and the conclusion can be empirically true, or they can be empirically false. The falsehood of the pre▯ises does▯’t ▯ake the argu▯e▯t i▯▯alid. • In deductively valid arguments, we can have true premises and a true conclusion, false premises and a false conclusion, or false premises and a true conclusion. • However, if we have true premises, we have to get a true conclusion, otherwise deductive argument is invalid. • Valid arguments can have this structure: T,T…=> T; T,F… => F; T,F… => F; F,F… => T; Ex. Of a deductively valid argument with false premises and a false conclusion: • Ex.1 All dogs have flippers. All cats are dogs. Therefore, all cats have flippers. • Ex.2 All fish read Russian novels. Goldie is my gold fish. Therefore, Goldie reads Russian novels. Ex. Of a deductively valid argument with false premises but true conclusion find more resources at oneclass.com
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only


Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit