Statements vs Non Statements

- Statements have a truth value i.e., they can either be true or false.
- To test whether a sentence is a statement or not  “it is true that<insert the
sentence>”, if it makes sense grammatically, it is a statement.
- Sentences which are requests, questions, orders and commands, declaration and
suggestions are not statements.
- However, rhetorical questions can be statements

Arguments

Components of an argument

- An argument points to reasons for why a statement is true

- An argument usually consists of reasons, which are premises, which justify/support
the claim/statement being made.
- Arguments can be fit into a diagram to break it down into its components
- Consists of 3 parts: the conclusion, the reasons/premises and the inference.
- The inference is the movement from the reasons to the conclusion
- The strength of the argument is dependent on the reasons being given for the
conclusion

Indicators

- Look out for conclusion indicators and reason indicators to identify the conclusions
and reasons which the writer is relying upon to make his argument
- Not all arguments utilise indicators when making their conclusions/reasons.
- The Principle of Charity says that you interpret someone’s words in as sensible a way
as possible while being careful not to put unintended words into his/her mouth

Conditional statements

- cannot be broken down into arguments, such as if…then statements.

- The statement is simply claiming that there is a connection between 2 claims.
- A conditional statement can only be a premise or a conclusion.

Types of reasoning

1) Linked reasoning: 2 or more premises support one conclusion

2) Convergent reasoning: several premises independently support one conclusion
3) Serial reasoning: a sequence of premises leading to the conclusion (Basic premise,
Intermediate conclusion, main conclusion)
4) Divergent reasoning: a single premise leads to 2 different conclusions
Premises and inferences

- A good argument needs premises which are true and inferences which are good.
While premises must be true or false, an inference comes in degree. To argue for a
good inference, the reasoning must emanate from the premise presented (as
compared to bringing up other lines of external arguments which oppose the
inference)
- The question of whether an inference is good is independent of whether the
premises are true or false. You can have false premises but a good inference based
on those faulty premises. Likewise, even if the premises are true, the inference
drawn from and thus the conclusion given can still be false.
- There are different levels of inferences  Valid (100% support all the time), Strong
(very strong support), Moderate (slightly supportive), Weak (very unsupportive) and
No inferential support (premise has no relation or connection to the inference)

- Deduction (the arguer is aiming to give certainty)  the premises are supported to
logically guarantee the conclusion  the arguer is trying to prove the conclusion
with 100% validity, the argument is either valid or invalid. Any argument with a valid
inference is a valid argument. This is to say that if the premises are true then the
conclusion must be true. The question here is not whether the premises are indeed
true but whether the conclusion from the premises, supposing that such premises
are true, is valid or invalid.
- When all the premises are true and there is a valid inference leading to the
conclusion from the premises, then the deductive argument is sound.

- Induction  the premises are only supported to make the conclusion highly
probable  the arguer is only trying to give a strong inference
- Where it is unclear whether the arguer is reasoning deductively or inductively, use
the principle of charity to decide.
- There are different degrees of support in an inductive argument weak, moderately
strong and strong
 - Strong 80-100%, Moderately strong  50-80%, Weak 0-50%
- Proof by absurdity  Galileo’s argument on why things fall at the same speed
- Where an inductive argument has all premises which are true, is strong and reliable
(the premises do not leave out extra information that you have which would reduce
the likelihood that the conclusion is true), then the argument is cogent.

Forms of deduction

Conditional reasoning

1) Modus ponens: if p(antecedent) then q(consequent). p…. therefore q  always

valid
2) Modus tollens: if p then q. Not q…therefore not p  always valid
3) Fallacy of Affirming the consequent  if p then q. q…therefore p always invalid
4) Fallacy of Denying the antecedent  if p then q. not p…therefore not q always
invalid
5) Transposition: if p then q….therefore if not q then not p  always valid, this is
simply a different method of applying modus tollens
6) Hypothetical syllogism: if p then q. if q then r…therefore if p then r  always valid

7) False dichotomy: either p or q. p…therefore not q. in this case the order of p and q do
not matter  it may be valid or invalid, it depends on whether it is exclusive or
 inclusive (not both vs or both). Take it in context as either p or q, and not both vs
either p or q, and possibly both. The statement is valid if the disjunction is exclusive
and it is invalid if the disjunction is inclusive.
8) Disjunctive syllogism: either p or q. not p…therefore q  always valid
9) Dilemma: either p or q. if p then r, if q then r…therefore r  always valid or it can be
expressed as constructive either p or q. if p then r. if q then s…therefore either r or s
or it can be expressed as destructive either not p or not q, if r then p, if s then q…
therefore not r or not s.

Necessary and sufficient conditions

- If p then q = p is sufficient for q = q is necessary for p  can be used to build modus

ponens

Categorical statements

- All F are G affirmative universal

- No F are G negative universal
- Some F are G affirmative particular
- Some F are not G negative particular
1) All S are M, All M are P therefore All S are P  always valid
2) All S are M, All P are M therefore All S are P  always invalid
3) All M are P, Some M are S therefore Some S are P  always valid
4) No M are P, Some S are M therefore S are not P  always valid
5) ALL P are M, Some S are M therefore Some S are P  always invalid
6) Some S are M, Some M are P therefore Some S are P  always invalid

Equivalent forms of conditionals

- If p(antecedent) then q(consequent)  q(consequent) if p(antecedent) 

p(antecedent) only if q(consequent)

Forms of inductive reasoning

1) statistical syllogism

2) inductive generalisation

3) Abduction  inference by eliminating unlikely possibilities and relying on the most likely
reasons.

Other forms of reasoning to be careful of:

4) predictive power some explanations generate predictions. if predictions are confirmed

by experience, the explanation is more strongly supported

5) enhanced control  some explanations enhance our power to control events. Plausible
explanations of one-off historical events often do not allow us to predict and control future
events eg, race riots in Singapore

6) Coherence 

7) background beliefs 

8) Ad hoc explanations  designed just to explain the phenomenon in question and lead to
no further testable predictions.

9) taking alternative explanations too seriously 

10) Appeals to ignorance  are interpreted as abductive arguments with the an implicit
premise. This form of reasoning can be fallacious or non-fallacious depending on the truth or
likelihood of the premise being used.  the burden of proof:

Conspiracy Theories

- Are explanations of historical events that appeal to the secretive actions of small
powerful groups with nefarious motives
- Some conspiracy theories can be true
- To ascertain whether the theory can be true  1) could the benefits be better
achieved by other means? 2) are the costs of carrying out the conspiracy likely to
outweigh the benefits?
- Identifying a possible motive is not sufficient
- Avoid lazy assumptions such as only paranoid people believe in conspiracy theories
or that only complacent and naïve people refuse to believe in them, or people you
support would not do something like this or groups that you hate would do
something like this.

Multi causal factor

- Monolithic cause fallacy  cannot assume that there is always one dominant cause
 - Correlation  two event, A and B, are correlated if they tend to occur regularly
together.
- Correlation to causation  just because there is a correlation, it does not mean that
one causes the other (A causes B) as there are 4 possibilities to this occurrence: A
causes B, B causes A, C causes A and B, A and B are occurring due to random
possibility.
o Evidence for/against coincidence  the best wat to test for this is to observe
many instances of A and B to see whether there continues to be a correlation.
However, this is difficult to apply when it is a one-off historical event which
cannot be observed many times
o Evidence for/against B causing A  an effect cannot precede a cause, so the
easiest way to show that B doesn’t cause A is finding that A occurs before B
o Evidence for/against a third cause  examine various possible third causes
and showing that they are implausible however it is difficult to be exhaustive.
- Causal arguments are abductive arguments  basic form: (1) A and B are correlated,
(2) the best explanation for this correlation is that A causes B.

Argument from authority

- Criteria for strength  is expertise possible? Is the authority a genuine authority on

this topic? Is there a consensus amongst the relevant authorities? Does the authority
have any biases related to the claim they affirm that make them untrustworthy?