[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Assignment # 1 ] [ Logic SG 1 ] [ Casting Arguments Assignment ] [ Logic SG 2 ] [ Assignment 3a ] [ Class Exercise on Arguments with Hypothetical Premises ] [ Assignment 3b ] [ Logic SG 3 ] [ Analyzing Miscellaneous Arguments ] [ Exercise on Miscellaneous Arguments ] [ Assignment 4 ] [ Logic SG 4 ] [ Fallacy Indentification Practice ] [ Fallacy Practice -10 ] [ Assignment 5 ] [ Logic SG 5 ] [ Assignment 6 ] [ Logic SG 6 ]

Analyzing Miscellaneous Arguments

Deductive arguments

1. Categorical syllogisms

1. Put the argument in standard form.
2. Make a Venn diagram.
3. Determine if the argument is valid or invalid.

2. Syllogisms with hypothetical or disjunctive premises

1. Formalize the argument.
2. For relatively simple syllogisms, you may be able to simply identify the argument form (modus ponens, modus tollens, fallacy of denying the antecedent, fallacy of asserting the consequent, disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism).
3. For more complex arguments, construct a truth table.
4. State whether the argument is valid or invalid.

Inductive arguments

1. Generalizations (including statistical generalizations)

1. Identify the conclusion and identify the sample on which the generalization is based.
2. How large is the sample?
3. How representative is the sample?
4. Are there biases built into the methodology?
5. Does the information provided lead to the conclusion?
6. Is the argument strong or weak? Explain why you think so.

2. Arguments from analogy

1. What is the analogue? What is the target?
2. What characteristics do the analogue and the target have in common? Are there major differences? Does a comparison seem to be appropriate?
3. What further characteristic of the analogue is attributed to the target? Does this further attribution seem appropriate?
4. Is the argument weak or strong?  Explain why you think so.

3. Good reasons arguments

1. Identify all the reasons given.
2. Do these reasons all support the conclusion?
3. Do these reasons provide enough evidence to shift the burden of proof?
4. Can objections be easily imagined?
5. Is the argument weak or strong? Explain why you think so.

4. Inductive hypothesis

1. Identify the hypothesis.
2. Is the hypothesis plausible?
3. Does the hypothesis explain all the relevant data?
4. Are there elements of generalization or causal argumentation that should be analyzed?
5. Can the hypothesis be tested? (You might want to propose a test.)
6. Is the argument weak or strong?  Explain why you think so.

5. Causal arguments

1. Identify the structure of the argument and if appropriate use Mill's chart
2. Ask if the effect can reasonably be related to the supposed cause.
3. Apply the method of agreement.
4. Apply the method of difference.
5. Look for the common fallacies in causal argumentation including confusing correlation with cause, overlooking a common cause, and post hoc reasoning.
6. Is the argument strong or weak? Explain why you think so.