Crossfire: Fundamentals of Reasoning

This test will cover the material in chapters 5: fallacies of relevance.

I will expect you to be able to identify all 11 fallacies of relevance, While you will not have to recite the whole list you will need to be able to label various texts that commit those fallacies, when given the list to choose from.

TO PREPARE:
1) Be sure to check out the online study resources at http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072879599/student_view0/chapter5/
Notice the drop down menu on the left. Do the T/F and multiple choice quizzes. You would also do well to look at the glossary, the chapter outline, and the power point tutorial.

2) Do the Chapter 5 exercises in the book. Remember that the answers for all exercises are on reserve in the library. The key to success is practice. The more exercises you do, the more practice you will have.

3) e-mail or call me if you have questions.

My uncle sent this on to me from a friend of his:

"A couple of days ago I was watching a DVD sermon by Louie Giglio...and I was BLOWN AWAY! I want to share what I learned....but I fear not being able to convey it as well as I want. I will share anyway.

He (Louie) was talking about how inconceivably BIG our God is...how He spoke the universe into being...how He breathes stars out of His mouth that are huge raging balls of fire...etc. etc. Then He went on to speak of how this star-breathing, universe creating God ALSO knitted our human bodies together with amazing detail and wonder. At this point I am LOVING it (fascinating from a medical standpoint, you know.) .....and I was remembering how I was constantly amazed during medical school as I learned more and more about God's handiwork. I remember so many times thinking....'How can ANYONE deny that a Creator did all of this???'

Louie went on to talk about how we can trust that the God who created all this, also has the power to hold it all together when things seem to be falling apart...how our loving Creator is also our sustainer.

And then I lost my breath.
And it wasn't because I was running my treadmill, either!!!
It was because he started talking about laminin.
I knew about laminin. Here is how wikipedia describes them :'Laminins are a family of proteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding of basement membranes in almost every animal tissue.' You see....laminins are what hold us together....LITERALLY. They are cell adhesion molecules. They are what holds one cell of our bodies to the next cell. Without them, we would literally fall apart. And I knew all this already. But what I didn't know is what laminin LOOKED LIKE.

But now I do.
And I have thought about it a thousand times since (already)....
Here is what the structure of laminin looks like...AND THIS IS NOT a 'Christian portrayal' of it....if you look up laminin in any scientific/medical piece of literature, this is what you will see...




Now tell me that our God is not the coolest!!!
Amazing.
The glue that holds us together....ALL of us....is in the shape of the cross.
Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind.

'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth , visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things were created by him and for him.
He is before all things,
and in him all things HOLD TOGETHER. '
Colossians 1:15-17

Call me crazy. I just think that is very, very, very cool.
Thousands of years before the world knew anything about laminin, Paul penned those words. And now we see that from a very LITERAL standpoint, we are held together...one cell to another....by the cross.

You would never in a quadrillion years convince me that is anything other than the mark of a Creator who knew EXACTLY what laminin 'glue' would look like long before Adam even breathed his first breath!!

We praise YOU, Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JoVeta Wescott
Ex. Dir. Kansas Parish Nurse Ministry, Inc.
www.KansasParishNurseMinistry.org


Now, being of the same stock as Thomas, I am not one to take this without some further evidence. So

here

here
and most remarkably
here

This test will cover Arguments from Analogy and Causal Arguments. Be able to:

Define:

analogy
cause
correlation
constant correlation
positive correlation
negative correlation
coincidence
common cause
post hoc/false cause fallacy


Identify

• arguments from analogy from mere analogies
• causal arguments
• post hoc/false cause fallacies

Evaluate

• Arguments from analogy, using the seven steps for evaluation
• Causal arguments, using the process of elimination strategy

Understand/explain

• that not every position can be defended by an argument from analogy.
• that offering a weak argument from analogy will do more harm than good.
• that we can't see causal relationships; we can only infer them.
• that a cause must precede the event in time
• that even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation
• that causal arguments can be manipulated to persuade an audience.
• the conditions under which there is no correlation between events
• that part of the significance of the correlation depends on the size of the sample
• four ways to explain a correlation
• that not all causal arguments contain the word cause
• list causal argument identifier words

This week our test will be about BOTH deductive and inductive argumentation, and focus on the first two types of induction: Inductive Generalizations and Statistical Arguments. This will give you a chance to review deduction (which we did last week) and see what you've been able to learn about induction

So, review everything you did for last week (see below, "Preparing for Test#3") plus

Be able to define:

• strong argument
• weak argument
• cogent argument
• uncogent argument
• reliable
• unreliable
• Inductive Generalization
• Statistical Argument
• sample population
• random
• double blind
• reference class

Be able to

• distinguish an inductive argument from a deductive argument
• list the inductive argument indicator words
• identify and evaluate inductive arguments from a given text
• tell whether an argument given to you is strong or weak; cogent or uncogent, reliable or unreliable
• show how an inductive argument can be strengthened by adding more evidence (premises).
• Identify and evaluate Inductive Generalizations.
• Identify and evaluate Statistical Arguments.

Inductive Generalizations

In understanding inductive generalizations, you should . . .
1) be able to identify the sample population and the population as a whole (i.e. the population that the generalization is about) in an inductive generalization.

2) understand that a good inductive argument should reach a conclusion that is appropriate to the evidence offered in the premises.

3) A more moderate conclusion makes the inference stronger.

4) An overstated conclusion makes the inference weaker.

5) In evaluating inductive generalizations you should ask the following questions:
--Are the premises true?
--Is the sample population large enough?
--Is the sample population representative of the population as a whole?

6) You should understand that a representative sample is similar to the population as a whole in all relevant respects.

In evaluating generalizations that are generated through opinion polls, you should . . .

1) understand that opinion polls operate under the same basic standards as other inductive generalizations insofar as the sample must be large enough and representative of the population as a whole;

2) The size of the sample should be large enough to reach an acceptable margin of error.

3) The sample is best generated randomly (where each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected) so as to avoid bias.

4) recognize the weaknesses in self-selecting samples;

5) understand

--how the tendency of people to respond to polls dishonestly, and the tendency of agencies with vested interests to ask slanted questions, can bias a poll sample;
--recognize the merits of a double-blind poll for generating objective results.

Statistical Arguments

In evaluating statistical arguments, students should . . .

1) understand the distinction between inductive strength and statistical reliability in statistical arguments;

2) understand how the specificity of the reference class in a statistical argument can impact the strength and reliability of the inference

Be able to:

1) define:

• deduction


• induction


• syllogism


• hypothetical syllogism


• chain argument


• antecedent


• consequent


• categorical syllogism


• valid (WARNING: remember, "valid" doesn't mean "true!")


• invalid


• sound


• unsound

2) distinguish deductive arguments from inductive arguments, and non-arguments like reports, opinions, illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements.

3) able to identify and evaluate (valid/invalid?) common patterns of deductive reasoning from a text:

a) be able to identify and evaluate hypothetical syllogisms

• chain argument


• affirming the antecedent (valid)


• denying the consequent (valid )


• affirming the consequent (invalid)


• denying the antecedent (invalid)

b) categorical syllogisms

4) Be able to tell whether an argument given to you is sound or unsound.

5) Know and be able to apply the common test for for deductive validity: "If you assumed the premises were all true, would the conclusion have to be true? If so, the argument is valid. If not, the argument is invalid."

5) Know that it is impossible to have true premises and a false conclusion if you have a valid deductive argument.

6) Know and be able to apply:

Indicator Word Test
Strict Necessity Test
Common Pattern Test