New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Logic (3)

by: Ashley Childers
Ashley Childers

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Introduction to Inductive reasoning and several Informal fallacies used in arguments.
Introduction to Philosophy
Paula Smithka
Class Notes
philosophy, logic, induction
25 ?




Popular in Introduction to Philosophy

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Ashley Childers on Wednesday February 24, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHI 151 at University of Southern Mississippi taught by Paula Smithka in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 25 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Southern Mississippi.


Reviews for Logic (3)


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 02/24/16
 Inductive Reasoning – degrees of probability o Good argument (Strong)  Technically all are invalid because of the loose connection o Cogent  Strong with true premises o Enumerative Induction  Generalizations  Based on a sample of a group you can generalize about the whole group  Criteria: o Sample size.  Proportionate to what you’re generalizing  Stereotypes: generalizations with small samples o Unbiased/representative  Predictions  That the future will be like the past  PUN o Principle of the uniformity of nature o Arguments by analogy (analogical reasoning)  Criteria:  The more similarities the better  Take into account important differences o Abduction  Inferences to the best explanation  Data/observations  Explanation/account for (Hypothesis)  Criteria:  Conservatism o Has to fit with already known data  Simplicity (Parsimony) o Does the job without unnecessary complications o Metaphysically Challenged (not real)  When arguments go wrong o Informal fallacies  Detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument  As compared to formal which deal with form o Appeal to force: arguer threatens the reader/listener  Such as bullying or blackmail o Appeal to Pity (Admisericoridam): arguer elicits pity from the reader/listener  Sad animal/children/veterans commercials o Appeal to the people: arguer incites a mob mentality (direct form) or appeals to our desire for security, love or respect (indirect form)  Direct: revolution! Or political conventions  Martin Luther King Jr.  Hitler  Indirect: Bandwagon (everyone else to I must too)  Appeal to popularity o “Everyone believes in a god, therefore there must be one…”  says that this is truth just because most believe it  Appeal to vanity: o Love admiration and esteemed  The few, the proud, the Marines  Weight loss, wrinkle cream, etc.  Appeal to Snobbery: o Not apart of the Posh but apart of the elite  College commercials  Ford with commercial (without decals)  The Most Interesting Man in the World o Argument against the person: arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing the opponent (ad hominem abuse), presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or she (ad hominem circumstantial), or by presenting the opponent as a hypocrite (tu quoque)  For this to occur there must be two arguers  Used often in politics (abusive)  Don’t listen to (person) because he’s a (insult, type of thing, etc.)  Circumstantial  Appeal to the circumstances o The opponent arguer has these opinions because they benefit from them o Tu quoque- (you/also) two wrongs make a right fallacy  I should be innocent because you are also guilty o Straw man: Arguer distorts an opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted argument  Creationist on evolution o Appeal to Unqualified Authority: arguer cites an untrustworthy author  Person appealed to who is outside the realm of expertise o Appeal to Ignorance: Premise report that nothing is know or proved about some subject, and then a conclusion is drawn  No conclusive evidence yet a conclusion is drawn  Example: It can not be proven that there is no afterlife, therefore there is an afterlife.  Innocent until proven guilty o Hasty Generalization: A general conclusion is drawn from an atypical sample  Generalization drawn when sample size is too small  AKA Stereotypes o False Cause: conclusion depends on a nonexistent or minor causal connection  If I don’t wear my lucky shoelaces the team will lose the game  Superstitious  Gamblers Fallacy: either I cant lose or my luck will turn around o Slippery Slope: Conclusion depends on an unlikely chain of causes <snowball effect>  Plausible premise but implausible conclusion  Dying your hair a crazy color will lead to tattoos and piercings, tattoos and piercings will lead to drugs, drugs lead to rebellion, rebellion will lead to jail o Begging the Question: Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out a key premise, restating the conclusion as a premise, or reasoning in a circle  Example: The bible proves that god exist because the bible says so, the bible is truth because it is the word of god  In media Begging the question means that we need to do more research and investigation o Complex Questions: Multiple questions are concealed as a single question  Joel, have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?  Discredits people who are not paying attention  Two questions in one, do you beat you girlfriend and have you stopped o False Dichotomy: An “either … or…” premise hides additional information  False dilemma  If I cant go to the Motionless in White concert I will be miserable for the rest of my life, you don’t want me to be miserable for the rest of my life so can I go to the Motionless in White concert o Equivocation: Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word or phrase  Uses a key term in two distinct ways  Love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, Stevie Wonder is love  Any law can be repealed by legislative authority, gravity is a law, therefore gravity can be repealed by legislative authority o Amphiboly: Conclusion depends on an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous statement made by someone other that the arguer  You do not want to fix these!  Professor J said that he will give a lecture on heart failure in the biology lecture hall, There must have been many heart failures in the Biology lecture hall. o Composition: An attribute is wrongly transferred from the parts to the whole  Each piece of wood that makes up the house is lightweight. Therefore the whole house is lightweight.  Combined experiences,  A law firm has a combined experience of 100 years, (does not state how many employees) o Division: an attribute is wrongly transferred from the whole to the parts  The house is heavy, therefore every piece of the house is heavy.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.