exam review.docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Mississauga
Nate Charlow

Arguments Justificatory: to persuade • justificans: thing that justifies • justificandum: thing to be justified Explanatory: to explain Syntax: arrangement of words and phrases to create well formed sentences; set of rules that tell us when its used in language, requires an object Semantics: concerned w/ meaning, tell us interpretations Transitive Verb: require subject and object Linguistic Act: meaningful utterance in a language Speech Acts: speakers use linguistic act to make meaningful utterance to accomplish specific goals • used when conveying information, commanding, asking questions • rules: audience response required, particular position by speaker, state of mind, institutions to be in place for speech act Performative: MAKE things the way YOU say things are Explicit Performative • Thereby Test : “I” uttered by speaker, speaker thereby does (e.g. command, promise, assert,etc) Conversational Act: give commands to change ppl’s plans(e.g. tell someone to give me $20) Gricean Maxims • Quantity: make your contribution as informative as required • Quality: don’t say what you believe to be false, or what you don’t know to be true Implicature : adhere to maxims you and others – allows to extract more info than what literally said Flouting Maxims: disobey maxim of quantity Common reason markers: “since”, “because, “as” Common conclusion markers: “therefore”, “hence”, “thus”, “then” Conditionals (if p then q) • Antecedent (if clause) & consequent (then clause) • Allow to infer new info when we know antecedents true Validity: when premise= true conclusion cannot be false(argument validity depends on syntactic notion (grammar)) Modus Tollens Denying Antecedent (invalid) Modus Ponens            1. If p then q 2. P ______ invalid 3. Q Soundness: Argument = valid and premise = true Circular: conclusion assumed by premise (e.g. if queen of England is 87, there is a queen of England) Assuring: indicating there are good reasons to believe claim(e.g doctors agree, commonly accepted, etc) Discounting: mention possible criticism of claim to reject it (e.g. although p, nevertheless q) Guarding: weakening claim (e.g. change all to most, replace flat assertion to I suspect) Excess Material: tangents, repetition, guarding terms, assurances usually not required to represent core premise & conclusion for argument Charity: represent argument in best possible light Clarifying: eliminate ambiguity & vagueness to extent can V or ^ Ↄ if then and tt = t tt=t tf=f tf=t tf=f tt=t ft=t ft=f ff=t ff=f ff=f ft=t Dissecting: break down into parts of complicated claim Sub Argument: argument for premise Diagramming Argument • X  Y, X’  Y (independent arguments for Y) • X  Y  Z (sub argument x for y : Main Argument Y for Z) • X + Y  Z (argument for Z with 2 essential parts) When is it ok to suppress a premise? Premise NOT controversial & audience can supply premise themselves Sentential Connective: build bigger sentence from small sentences Refer Notes for Venn Diagrams & Truth Tables Deductive Argument: one that seeks to be valid, usually explanatory arguments, provide GUARENTEE of conclusion provided premises are true • Although are not conclusive as they do not generally make their conclusions certain unless WE ARE CERTAIN of their premise Inductive Argument: increases probability of conclusion making it UNLIKELY for conclusion to be false Conclusive: premise = true KNOW conclusion = true Defeasible: premise = true reasonable to believe conclusion = true Strength: defeasible  inductive argument which can become weak if add premise • Validity = conclusive Lottery Paradox: no ticket will win, deductively valid Statistical Generalization: infer characteristics of population based on sample of group • When strong?  when no bias, large enough sample Hasty Generalization: generalization made on bases of too small of sample Statistical Syllogisms: use statistical claims to argue about characteristics of intended group Inference to Best Explanation: immediately go to most logical explanation after an incident(observation, explanation, comparison & conclusion) • Things that make explanation better o Coverage : better explanation than alternative explanation o Depth: better explanations don’t require an explanation o Power: better explanation explains wide range of related and similar case (e.g. burglaries explain a lot of incidents) o Falsifiable: explanations that can be falsified (proven wrong thru premise) o Modesty: just enough to explain what happened (e.g. “I was burgled to “I was burgled by a clown”) o Simplicity: better explanations are simple (e.g. “I was burgled” to “complicated conspiracy” Arguments about Analogy : A has properties P,Q. B,C,D also have properties P,Q. B,C,D also have property X. THEREFORE, A must also have property X . Strong when : • relevant: similarities cited b/w A and B must relevant (e.g. comparing car = reliable because have same make and model TO inferring car = reliable because they are the same colour) • specific: similarities cited b/w A and B must be specific (e.g. comparing car = reliable because have same make and mo
More Less

Related notes for PHL145H5

Log In


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


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.