This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.
Logic
∙Definition: [definition] |
∙Goal: [definition] |
∙Purpose: [definition] |
Arguments, etc.
|
∙Argument: [definition] |
|
∙Premises: [definition] |
|
∙Conclusion: [definition] |
Reasoning
|
∙Inference: [definition] ∙Style: [definition]
∙Efficacy: [definition]
∙Justification: [definition]
|
|
∙Rationality: [definition] ∙Rational: [definition]
∙Irrational: [definition]
|
Statements
|
∙Content: [definition] |
|
∙Force: [definition] |
|
∙Expression: [definition] |
|
|
Dimensions of Reasoning
|
∙Inferential: the varying inferential relations premises and conclusions stand in when connected together via reasoning |
|
∙Representational: the varying degrees of accuracy statements exhibit when connected with reality via assertion and belief |
Norms of Reasoning
|
Rationality: norm for evaluating the inferential dimension of arguments Rational: premises successfully justify the inferred conclusion
[positive inferential "value"]
Irrational: premises fail to justify the inferred conclusion
[negative inferential "value"]
|
|
Accuracy: norm for evaluating the representational dimension of arguments True: positive inferential "value"
Irrational: negative ver "value"
|
Inaccurate: statement successfully
[positive representational "value"]
False: statement fails to veridically represent the actual facts
[negative representational "value"]
|
|
Recognizing Statements
|
1. Indicator Words |
|
|
|
2. Common Types of Non-Statement |
|
· Commands
· Proposals
· Requests
|
Recognizing Arguments
|
1. Indicator Words |
|
2. Logical Order |
|
3. Background Context |
|
4. Common Types of Argument |
|
5. Common Types of Non-Argument |
Assessing Validity, Pt. 2
Common Non-Arguments
|
∙[definition] ∙ Advice
∙ Assertion
∙ Description
∙ Explanation
∙ Exposition
∙ Illustraction
∙ Reporting
∙ Quotation
∙ Warning
|
Validity vs. Strength: Similarities
|
1. Both depend on whether the truth-conditions of the premises and the truth-conditions of the conclusion are correctly related. |
|
2. Neither depend on the actual true-value of the premises or the conclusion. |
Validity vs. Strength: Differences
|
1. Only deductive inferences can be valid/invalid, and only inductive inferences can be strong/weak. |
|
2. When the premises in a valid argument are all true, it's impossible the conclusion is false. When the premises in a strong argument are all true, it's only improbable the conclusion is false. |
|
3. Validity is all-or‐nothing, but strength is a matter of degree. |
1.
For strong arguments, when
it is still For strong arguments, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can s9ll be false.
|
