Question analysis and response frameworks

¶ … condition that's NECESSARY for an argument to be "fallacious." necessary condition for an argument to be fallacious is that it be an argument (rather than, say, a mere description). Nothing is a fallacious argument unless it is an argument.

For 5 points, cite one condition that's SUFFICIENT.

A sufficient condition for an argument to be fallacious is if the argument trades on an ambiguity and thereby commits the fallacy of equivocation. An argument commits the fallacy of equivocation if (but not only if) two premises of the argument contain a predicate that has two different senses. If we disambiguate the premises in the same way, one of the premises is false. If we disambiguate the premises so as to make them both true, the argument is invalid.

For 5 points, cite one condition that's both NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT.

Being rationally unconvincing is both necessary and sufficient for an argument to be fallacious. An argument is rationally unconvincing if and only if (1) the premises don't support the conclusion, (2) one of the premises is false, or (3) the argument is circular (or begs-the-question).

1.4. Cite one RELEVANT condition that's neither necessary nor sufficient:

When evaluating an argument to see whether it is fallacious, it is relevant to check to see whether it is deductively valid -- that is, check to see if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. All non-fallacious (rationally compelling) arguments are either deductively valid or inductively strong. Being invalid is not a necessary condition for fallaciousness, though, as some valid arguments are fallacious -- those with false premises and circular arguments. Moreover, being invalid is not a sufficient condition for fallaciousness as some good arguments are not valid, namely those that are (among other things) inductively strong.

1.5. Find an example in of such an argument IN THE TEXT and show how it fits your portrayal.

The fallacy of ambiguity -- discussed in Rudinow, et al. Chapter 3, Section 4 -- illustrates this well.

Hurley provides an answer to the problem of establishing relevance in inductive arguments. Check Chapter 9!

2.1. For 5 points, where exactly is it located? Quote the relevant sentence(s) and give the requisite citation. Be as brief as possible:

in her introduction to Induction.

2.2. For 0-20 points, write an essay 1 page giving your opinion as to how this process might be encouraged and supported.

See below: Essay I

Rudinow and Barry provide an answer to the problem of establishing relevance in inductive arguments.

1. For 5 points, where exactly is it located? Quote the relevant sentence(s) and give the requisite citation. Be as brief as possible:

The start of chapter 7 on induction.

2. For 0-20 points, write an essay 1 page giving your opinion as to how this process might be encouraged and supported.

See below: Essay II

Essay I. Sometimes it is difficult to see whether an argument contains premises that are relevant to the conclusion. There are lots of reasons for this. For example, the fact that we find the fallacies of relevance psychologically compelling, on the one hand, and often are unconvinced by arguments that are invalid buy would become valid with the addition of a plausible implicit premise, illustrate that we have trouble identifying whether or not the evidence is relevant to the conclusion.

When evaluating (purportedly) deductively valid arguments, however, it is easy to find a method to test whether the premises are relevant to the conclusion (just use the proof method, or the Venn diagram method, or the truth table method). When it comes to inductive arguments, though, it's much more difficult. Why? Because there is no sure fire test for inductive strength. You can't just apply a set of rules to see whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion. Or so it seems.

Hurley suggests that there in fact are formal rules of inductive logic, it's just that they are more complicated than the rules for deductive logic. So long as we understand these complicated rules, and when to apply the relevant exception clauses, we can test any argument for inductive strength and see whether the premises are relevant to the conclusion.

So what are the rules we need to learn? We also need to be able to identify particular kinds of inductive argument forms: arguments to the best explanation, scientific inference, statistical inferences, arguments from analogy, etc. This process can be encouraged and supported by teaching people these rules, and helping them identify the forms of argument used in natural language.

Essay II. An argument is deductively valid if and only if the probability of the conclusion, given (i.e. On the hypothetical assumption) that the premises are true, is 1 (i.e., 100%). An argument is inductively strong if and only if (1) the argument is not deductively valid, (2) the probability of the conclusion, given (i.e. On the hypothetical assumption) that the premises are true, is high, and (3) the truth of the premises would raise the likelihood of the conclusion being true. These are the only two ways premises can be relevant to a conclusion. How do we test for inductive validity? How can this process be encouraged and supported? The answer comes in two parts.