Show Menu

PHI1600: Basics Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.


Def­ini­tion: [defin­ition]
Goal: [defin­ition]
Pur­pose: [defin­ition]

Arguments, etc.

Arg­ume­nt: [defin­ition]
Pre­mis­es: [defin­ition]
Con­clu­sion: [defin­ition]


Inf­ere­nce: [defin­ition]
Sty­le: [defin­ition]
Eff­ica­cy: [defin­ition]
Jus­tif­ica­tion: [defin­ition]
Rat­ion­ali­ty: [defin­ition]
Rat­ion­al: [defin­ition]
Irr­ati­onal: [defin­ition]


Con­tent: [defin­ition]
For­ce: [defin­ition]
Exp­res­sion: [defin­ition]

Styles of Inference






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 Validty


Form & Substi­tution


Assessing Validity, Pt. 2


Condit­ional Statements


Common Non-Ar­guments

∙ 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.

For strong arguments, when

it is still For strong arguments, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can s9ll be false.