Liberty University PHIL 201 Module Week 2 Study Guide Lesson 6 complete solutions correct answers A+

Liberty University PHIL 201 Module Week 2 Study Guide Lesson 6 complete solutions correct answers A+

Study Guide Lesson 4

Study Guide Lesson 5

Study Guide: Lesson 6

Analyzing Arguments

Lesson Overview

In our final lesson on logic and arguing, we discuss the tasks of constructing and analyzing an argument. Throughout the rest of this course, you will be introduced to a variety of theories that attempt to answer some puzzling philosophical questions. These theories will argue for a particular way to answer the questions, and you will want to be able to evaluate those arguments to see if you agree with them or not. This lesson will give you a tactical approach in how to perform the tasks of analyzing and evaluating arguments as well as how to construct an argument of your own.

Tasks

View and take notes on the video “Analyzing Arguments.” It aims to orient you to the main issues in the reading.

Read and take notes from Chapter 7 of Prelude to Philosophy: “Analyzing Arguments.” As you read, make sure to understand the following points and questions:

·         Why is clarity important for a good argument?

·         What is the difference between consistent and coherent?

·         What determines how comprehensive an argument needs to be?

·         What are the 2 basic approaches to structuring an argument?

·         Explain the idea of fair use of evidence.

·         What is a positive/negative approach and what is the advantage of using it?

·         What is the advantage of a best explanation approach?

·         List and explain the 5 aspects of a best explanation.

·         What is the principle of simplicity and what is a danger concerning it?

·         What is the very first task in analyzing an argument?

·         What are 3 ways to find the conclusion in an argument?

·         What is the common standard logical order for an argument?

·         Why do we ask about the premises supporting the conclusion before asking about the truthfulness of the premises?

·         What are the 2 reasons arguments fail?

·         How does observing language help us to determine the reliability of the premises?

·         What is meant by examples being representative? What is a counterexample?

·         Explain the problems of unqualified and conflicting authorities and how to resolve them.

·         What are some of the traps to watch out for when arguing causally?

Terms

Make sure you fully understand the following terms and concepts:

·         Consistency

·         Coherence

·         Comprehensive

·         Explanatory Scope

·         Explanatory Power

·         Plausible

·         Ad Hoc

·         Illumination

·         Occam’s Razor

·         Indicator Terms

·         Inferential Link

·         Counterexample

·         Causal Argument

Study Guide: Lesson 4

A Little Logic

Lesson Overview

Logic is the primary tool or methodology in studying philosophy. Philosophy is about analyzing and constructing arguments and a good understanding of the basics of logical reasoning is essential in performing that task. The next 3 lessons will focus on logic and analyzing arguments. In this lesson, you will first be introduced to the laws of logic. These are the first principles for all reasoning. We will then discuss the specialized terminology we use in logic. Finally, we will examine 2 major kinds of logical reasoning: deductive and inductive. We will consider different forms of arguments under each and discuss how to evaluate these arguments. Take note that a large part of this lesson is about learning the terminology for logic.

Tasks

Read and take notes from Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 5: “A Little Logic.” As you read, make sure you understand the following points and questions:

·         Why are the laws of logic foundational?

·         List and explain the 3 laws of logic.

·         Know the symbolic expression of the law of non-contradiction and how it clears up confusions.

·         Explain the common confusion concerning God and contradictions.

·         Know the symbolic expression of the Law of Excluded Middle. Why is it called the Law of Excluded Middle?

·         Know the why the laws of logic are self-evident.

·         Know the three parts of an argument.

·         Distinguish the language of evaluating arguments (deductive and inductive) from how we evaluate propositions.

·         Explain the relationship between truth value of the propositions with the validity/strength of the argument.

·         Know the point about agreeing with the conclusion of an argument and it being a good argument.

·         Know the kind of conclusion arrived at by a valid deductive argument.

·         Note the difference in terminology between the laws of logic and the rules of valid inference.

·         Explain the categorical syllogism (you did not need to memorize the chart nor the 6 rules of valid inference).

·         Explain the disjunctive syllogism and know the fallacy.

·         Explain what a hypothetical proposition is doing and what it is not doing.

·         Explain the hypothetical syllogism and know the two fallacies.

·         Contrast induction with deduction.

·         How are inductive arguments evaluated in comparison to deductive arguments and what makes an argument stronger or weaker?

·         Explain the 6 forms of inductive arguments.

·         Know the idea of relevant similarity concerning analogies.

View the Presentation: “Deductive and Inductive Arguments” as it is a good summary of some of the reading in this module/week.

Terms

Make sure you fully understand the following terms and concepts:

·         Laws of Logic

·         Law of Non-Contradiction

·         Law of Excluded Middle

·         Self-Evident

·         Argument

·         Proposition

·         Premises

·         Conclusion

·         Inference

·         Non-Sequitur

·         Valid/Invalid

·         Strong/Weak

·         Truth Value

·         Sound

·         Cogent

·         Deduction

·         Valid Deductive Argument

·         Syllogism

·         Rules of Valid Inference

·         Categorical Syllogism

·         Categorical Proposition

·         Disjunctive Syllogism

·         Disjunctive Proposition

·         Alternant

·         Fallacy of Affirming the Alternant

·         Hypothetical Syllogism: Pure and Mixed

·         Hypothetical Proposition

·         Antecedent

·         Consequent

·         Modus Ponens

·         Modus Tollens

·         Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

·         Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

·         Induction

·         Generalization

·         Analogy

·         Probability Calculus

·         Statistical Reasoning

·         Causal Inference

·         Formal Fallacy

Study Guide: Lesson 5

Informal Fallacies

Lesson Overview

In our last lesson, we began a study in logic and overviewed the basic terminology and types of logical argumentation. In this lesson, we survey a number of well-known informal fallacies. Formal fallacies break specific rules of valid inference, but informal fallacies do not a break a specific rule. They are guilty of bad reasoning due to a flaw in the content of the argument. We will organize the fallacies around 4 types of flaws: weak induction, ambiguous language, questionable presumptions, and irrelevant issues.

Tasks

Read and take notes on Prelude to Philosophy, Chapter 6: “Informal Fallacies.” As you read, make sure you understand the following points and questions:

·         Explain the difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy.

·         What is a fallacy of weak induction?

·         Explain the fallacies of hasty generalization, sweeping generalization, weak analogy, and slippery slope.

·         Describe the fallacy of false cause and know the different types.

·         What is a fallacy of ambiguity?

·         Explain the fallacies of equivocation, hypostatization, amphiboly, composition, and division.

·         What is the problem with using language that is emotionally loaded or a cliché in an argument?

·         What is a fallacy of presumption? Explain the difference between assuming and presuming.

·         Explain begging the question and its different forms.

·         Explain the fallacies of bifurcation, special pleading, and complex question.

·         What is a fallacy of relevance?

·         Explain the 3 different types of ad hominem fallacies.

·         Explain the 3 different types of ad populum fallacies.

·         Explain the red herring, straw man and appeal to pity fallacies.

Terms

Make sure you fully understand the following terms and concepts:

·         Hasty Generalization

·         Sweeping Generalization

·         Weak Analogy

·         False Cause

·         Post Hoc

·         Oversimplified Cause

·         Non causa pro causa

·         Ambiguity

·         Equivocate

·         Hypostatization

·         Personification

·         Amphiboly

·         Composition

·         Division

·         Cliché

·         Presume

·         Begging the Question

·         Bifurcation

·         Euphemism

·         Pejorative

·         Ad Hominem

·         Tu Quoque

·         Ad Populum

·         Red Herring

·         Straw Man