PHIL 347N Week 4 Assignment: Journal

Document Content and Description Below

1 Running head: Journal Week 4 Assignment Darlenis Peralta Chamberlain University PHIL347N: Critical Reasoning March, 2020 This study source was downloaded by 100000831988016 from CourseHero.co... m on 05-03-2022 04:45:18 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/61962324/Week-4-Assignment-Journaldocx/ 2 Running head: Journal Inference: Briefly discuss how the lexical definitions and connotations of "valid" and "warranted" can help us understand the differing purposes of deductive and inductive arguments.  Valid is something well-grounded on principles or evidence; able to withstand criticism or objection, as an argument; sound. For example, a passport is valid until it is expired. Warranted is thought to be the ingredient that separates mere true belief from actual knowledge. It is a matter of controversy. The lexical definitions and connotations of valid and warranted helps us understand the differing purposes of deductive and inductive reasoning by how new information impacts the reasoning. With Warranted arguments new information can lead us to reconsider our conclusions without abandoning any of our original premises. With new information in hand, we may reasonably determine that our original conclusion was a mistake, even though all of our premises remain true. With valid arguments, the conclusion is implied or entailed by the premises which means that if the conclusion is false, then one or more of the premises may be false also (Facione & Gittens p. 175, 2016). Valid goes to deductive reasoning as warranted goes to inductive reasoning. Fallacies: Denying the Antecedent  If everyone who lived in Mississippi drank red wine daily, then the wine industry would be booming. But some Mississippians never drink red wine, so the wine industry is not booming. (Facione & Gittens p. 167, 2016). This study source was downloaded by 100000831988016 from CourseHero.com on 05-03-2022 04:45:18 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/61962324/Week-4-Assignment-Journaldocx/ 3 Running head: Journal  Valid argument: Denying the consequent Premises 1: If A, then B. Premises 2: Not A. Conclusion: therefore; not B Explain, in your own words, how the fallacy is revealed through analysis of the valid argument template. o The fallacy is revealed through the use of grammar. According to the text, “Analysis of the meanings of the terms used and the grammatical rules of the language reveal the source of error" (p.167). For example, the template I used. If A, then B. Not A. therefore not B. If everyone who lived in Mississippi drank red wine daily (A), then the wine industry would be booming. But some Mississippians never drink red wine, so the wine industry is not booming. The grammar used revealed the argument as denying the consequent because it was not A therefore; it is not B. Civic Responsibility Do you think that completing such an exercise would be time well spent or time wasted? If well-spent, why? If time wasted, why?  I think that completing this exercise would be time well spent as it gives us the chance to analyze and evaluate the arguments in this passage. With what we learned in the previous chapters we can piece every topic we learned so far such as applying the four basic tests, and understand this argument more, and to decide if this argument is valid or invalid. Doing this exercise will put what we learned about critical thinking skills to work. This study source was downloaded by 100000831988016 from CourseHero.com on 05-03-2022 04:45:18 GMT -05:00 https://www.coursehero.com/file/61962324/Week-4-Assignment-Journaldocx/ 4 Running head: Journal Is there any issue on which you think a comparable amount of time and effort would be worthwhile?  I think the issue that would be worthwhile to analyze is free college for students. I would like to know people’s input on thi [Show More]

Last updated: 2 years ago

Preview 1 out of 4 pages