Arguments. An Introduction to Informal Logic. NINTH EDITION .. informal logic. The ninth edition of Understanding Arguments differs from the eighth edition in a . Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic,. Eighth Edition. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and. Robert J. Fogelin. Publisher/Executive Editor: Clark. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic 8th Edition. by Walter . Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments, Concise Edition.
|Language:||English, French, Arabic|
|ePub File Size:||26.41 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.35 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Rescher, ). the logic of argument and informal fallacies (Johnson and Blair, ) In Chapter 8 of this highly influential work Introduction to Logical Theory (),. Strawson .. Fogelin, Understanding Arguments: An Informal Logic. Fogelin uses (8th edition, ), with Nancy. Cavender. Understanding arguments: an introduction to informal logic / Robert J. Fogelin, Walter to informal logic / Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Robert J. Fogelin. - 8th ed. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, Eighth Edition Ebook E-Book readable online or download on PDF DJVU TXT DOC MP3 CFM.
Discussion forum Students will be expected to participate in discussion forums for each week of the course beginning from the first week. Students will be required to post a total of three posts each week on the discussion forum: 1.
You will be given a discussion question every week. Students are required to post your answer to these questions to the discussion board. You must post two commentaries or thoughts about the posts on the discussion forum.
This is could be a question, critique, musing, or elaboration of any of the material covered during the unit. Online Discussion Questions As intimated above, you will be expected to answer a discussion question on the videos and readings for each unit and are required to post your answer.
Each answer should be from paragraphs long. They are due no later than the Sunday ending each lesson. Post-Reading questions Each Sunday for the entire course students will be expected to submit answers to questions based on the readings of the week.
Answers should be at least words long. You are required to submit these to the proper discussion forum, as intimated on the course website. Unit Quizzes You are required to complete a quiz for each of the course units. These quizzes will cover the required material covered in each unit, including the readings and lectures.
Final Exam The course will conclude with a final exam that will be given online. This will include questions from each of the units.
Download Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic , Eighth Edition Book
This final exam will cover the required material for the course, including the readings and lectures. In addition, there will also be a written component. Students are expected to post their assigned questions or comments, follow the discussion, and actively participate in the discussion.
Answers should be at least words in length. Submitting shorter answers will negatively affect the student's grade. If they are not referenced, then the student's grade will be lowered. In addition, answers should be at least words in length. Submitting shorter answers will also negatively affect the student's grade. Your grade for quizzes will be given immediately after the quiz ends.
It will also include a written component. Scale for the final course grade is as follows: 4. Incomplete comparison — insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison — different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison. Intentionality fallacy — the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated e.
UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS 9TH E, EXERCISE ANSWERS - ANSWERS...
Mind projection fallacy — subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perceptions of that object. Moralistic fallacy — inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact—value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy.
Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below. Moving the goalposts raising the bar — argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other often greater evidence is demanded.
Nirvana fallacy perfect-solution fallacy — solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. Onus probandi — from the Latin onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim.
It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. Also known as " shifting the burden of proof ". Proof by assertion — a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam Prosecutor's fallacy — a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
Proving too much — using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, invalid conclusion. Psychologist's fallacy — an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event. Referential fallacy  — assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how they are used.
Reification concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness — a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction abstract belief or hypothetical construct is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity.
In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea. Retrospective determinism — the argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.
It is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. Improper premise[ edit ] Begging the question petitio principii — providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise. When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion. For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives.
Fallacy of many questions complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum — someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. Faulty generalizations[ edit ] Faulty generalization — reach a conclusion from weak premises.
Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly support the conclusions.
A faulty generalization is thus produced. Accident — an exception to a generalization is ignored.
It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it. Misleading vividness — involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Overwhelming exception — an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
Questionable cause[ edit ] Questionable cause - Is a general type error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation.
List of fallacies
Either by inappropriately deducing or rejecting causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. Fallacy of the single cause causal oversimplification  — it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Furtive fallacy — outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers. Gambler's fallacy — the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.
In anthropology , it refers primarily to cultural beliefs that ritual, prayer, sacrifice, and taboos will produce specific supernatural consequences. In psychology , it refers to an irrational belief that thoughts by themselves can affect the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.
Regression fallacy — ascribes cause where none exists.Hence, for any claim that a particular conclusion is, on balance, significantly more supported than another, there will be a weight assignment that makes it so. The conductive structure is characterized most markedly by its conclusion being arrived at through a weighing of pro reasons against counter-considerations. A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare.
Reed eds. Incomplete comparison — insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Informal Logic 30, Zenker 81 mark can, but it need not be represented by a numeral.
This will include questions from each of the units.