Deductive Language Analysis - Coursework Example

Deductive Language Construct a deductive argument that is valid but not sound. Then, construct a valid deductive argument that is sound. Be sure to put the argument in premise-conclusion form. Deductive argument that is valid, but not sound: Premise: All necklaces are made of gold. Premise: Gold items are expensive. Conclusion: Therefore, all necklaces are expensive. This is a valid deductive argument, but not a sound one. This argument is based on premises that are not necessarily true. If the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true. However, the premises are not accurate. This makes the argument valid, but not sound. A valid deductive argument that is sound: Premise: Either I own a dog or a cat. Premise: I do not own a cat. Conclusion: Therefore, I must own a dog. This argument can be valid and sound. It is possible that I own a cat or a dog, but not both. It is possible I own a dog. It also cannot be true that I own a cat because of one of the premises. The only conclusion is I own a dog. 2. Inductive Language Construct an inductive argument for a specific conclusion. Then, explain what you might do to make this inductive argument stronger, either by revising the premises or by revising the conclusion. Inductive argument for a specific conclusion: Premise: John is a redhead. Premise: Jay is a redhead. Premise: Jennifer is a redhead. Premise: John, Jay, and Jennifer are siblings. Premise: John, Jay, and Jennifer’s parents are redheads. Conclusion: Parents with red hair have a good chance of having children with red hair. This is an inductive argument because the conclusion is more than likely correct. However, it is not as strong as it could be. Here is another argument that might be stronger. Premise: John is a redhead. Premise: Jay is a redhead. Premise: Jennifer is a redhead. Premise: John, Jay, and Jennifer are siblings. Premise: John, Jay, and Jennifer’s parents are redheads. Conclusion: Since John, Jay, and Jennifer have red hair, any other children born to their parents will have red hair. By using a specific family, the conclusion be comes stronger. The whole population of two married red heads is less likely to have all red headed children than John, Jay, and Jennifer’s parents. 3. Fallacious Arguments Considering the fallacies discussed in Chapter Four of An Introduction to Logic, construct three different arguments that display distinct fallacies. Give an explanation of why each makes a mistake in drawing the conclusion it does. Review your classmates’ examples and see if they, in fact, commit the fallacy identified. Ad Hominem Fallacy Premise: Adolf Hitler was German Premise: Adolf Hitler waged a genocide war against the Jews, mentally ill, and Slavic people. Premise: Hitler was evil. Conclusion: Therefore all Germans are evil. This is an Ad Hominem Fallacy because it is based on a person’s, Hitler, character. Begging the Question Premise: Adultery is always wrong. Premise: Jane has committed adultery. Conclusion: Therefore, Jane is always wrong. This is Begging the Question Fallacy because it has circular reasoning. Jane is wrong because she committed adultery. Adultery is wrong, so Jane is wrong for committing it. Hasty Generalization Premise: My computer is an Acer. Premise: My computer’s hard drive crashed because of a virus. Conclusion: All Acer computers have hard drives that crash. This is a Hasty Generalization. Just because my computer crashed due to a virus does not mean all Acer computers have hard drives that crash. I might not have had the right anti-virus protection on my computer, or I could have bought a damaged computer. Just because one product fails does not mean the whole line of products will fail. 4. The Media and Fallacies One rich source of fallacies is the media: television, radio, magazines, and the Internet (including, of course, commercials.) Identify two distinct fallacies you see committed in the media. Do you think it is more likely that you will not be fooled by these fallacies having studied logic? What do you think those presenting these arguments assume about the logical skills of their viewers? Is this a good or bad assumption for them to make? Hasty Generalization is rampant in the media. For example, the Pringles’ add that suggests ‘once you pop you cannot stop’. Another is the Lay Potato Chip ad that states ‘you can’t just have one’. The implication is if you open a can of Pringles than the taste is so good you cannot help but eat the whole can. One chip is so good; all the other chips will be just as good. Ad Hominem Fallacy which is based on a person’s personality also runs rampant in the media. Sports figures, movie stars, and other individuals sell products everyday. Motor oils, car parts, shaving cream, soda, and just about everything else is sold by NASCAR drivers. If X motor oil is good enough for Dale Earnhardt Jr., then it should be good enough for you. Politicians sell themselves for elections. Media is often based on the personality of an individual. It is less likely I will be fooled by these fallacies since studying about logic. If I buy something or see something in the media, it is more likely I will recognize the fallacies in an argument. It does not mean I will stop buying celebrity endorsed products, but I will know why I buy them. I think the media assumes that the masses of consumers are not logical, but emotional. Most individuals are too busy to logically think out the reasons why to buy toothpaste or backing a politician. Human nature often guides people to go with a hunch instead of logic. I feel that this is a good assumption for the media and money makers, but bad for the consumers. Not everyone uses logic, but the ones that do can be offended by false assertions, claims, and arguments. 5. Logic and Science Provide a scientific hypothesis and explain how one might go about testing it, either by confirming the hypothesis or using Karl Popper's strategy of disconfirmation. Discuss which of these two strategies is better and why. One scientific hypothesis is salt water freezes slower than fresh water. In order to test this hypothesis an individual can the same size container and put salt water (sea water) and fresh water in the same freezer. Checking the water containers every hour see which one freezes slower. This can be provable. On the other hand, Popper’s strategy of disconfirmation would also be useful. If you repeated this experiment several times and received different results, they hypothesis might have to be more defined. For example, the salt water might have to be defined more clearly. If one tester used one grain of salt, the results might be disconfirmed. If the hypothesis stated ? cup of salt to a gallon of distilled water against a gallon of regular water would result in the freezing of the regular water first. Both proving and disconfirming are equally important when testing a hypothesis. It takes both to prove or disapprove a hypothesis. 6. Logic and Ethics Mary is poor. She has not been able to find a job and has two children she needs to feed. Assume Mary is forced to let her children go hungry or steal some food from a local grocery store. Which should she do? Construct an argument that supports Mary's decision to steal the food or an argument that shows why Mary should not steal the food. Critique the arguments offered by your classmates. Mary should turn to a neighbor, shelter, or government assistance to help feed her children instead of stealing. Even dumpster diving behind the local grocery store would be preferable to stealing. If caught stealing she could go to jail and lose her children. Local government programs, charities, and neighbors can help without the risk of losing her children. Even going house to house asking for odd jobs would be better than stealing. In America, there are always options. Stealing is never just the only option. It might be the easy solution, but in the end a little ingenuity can help an individual out of a situation. It just takes a strong enough person to think about the problem in different ways. It seems like everyone wants the easy way out. Stealing is the easy way out. However, if you steal to feed you children, even if you do not get caught, you teach your children to steal. That is setting them up for failure in the future. 7. Symbolic Logic Write two arguments in English, one in the form of modus ponens and one in the form of modus tollens. Then, write the arguments in symbols using sentence letters and truth-functional connectives. (If your computer does not have all the symbols needed, use some other symbol you do have access to and explain what its meaning is.) Modus Ponens Argument Premise: School is in session on Wednesday. Premise: Today is Wednesday. Conclusion: Therefore, school is in session today. Modus Ponens Symbol p > q Modus Tollens Premise: If Mary is sick, she is pregnant. Premise: Mary is not sick. Conclusion: Mary is not pregnant. Modus Tollens Symbol What advantages does being able to symbolize our arguments provide? Are there disadvantages to using this technique to make the structure of our arguments more explicit and clear? The advantage of symbolizing an argument is mathematical people can understand the argument better. For example with Modus Ponens the symbol p > q shows p is the same as q. If p is q, then q is p. This helps put the argument into perspective without using emotional facts. The disadvantages of using this technique is not everyone is mathematical. Some people understand an argument in premise/conclusion form better. Logic has to be logical to the individual studying the argument. If it is not, then something is wrong with the argument. Having two ways to explain an argument could reach more people. 8. Why Study Logic? Imagine someone asks you what you have learned in your logic class and what you found to be the most useful information you learned there. Is it important for people to study logic? What kinds of mistakes might they make without having been exposed to a careful study of reasoning provided by logic? Offer your response to these questions, and compare your answers to your classmates' responses. The most important think I have learned is there are reasons behind arguments. No matter how emotional the argument there is logic behind it. Although the logic might not be sound or have fallacies, there are reasons and logic behind each argument. It is important for people to study logic in order to create better arguments. If a better argument is formed then your point of view can be easily understand. Mistakes people make without learning reasoning provided by logic are fallacies, unsound arguments, and illogical arguments. A good argument can persuade even the most stubborn opponent. However, if fallacies or unsound arguments are detected then it is doubtful you can persuade anyone. Persuading someone with a logical argument can help you sell a product, get your way on an issue, or even get a job. Persuasion is the key to ending disagreements and fights. If you can get someone to see your side then the less likely there will be resistance. Read More