Elementary
Logic (PHIL-1030 [71274])
Prof.
Edgar
Boedeker Spring
2018 MWF,
12:00-12:50 Lang
20
Office hours: 2:15-3:15pm Tuesdays and Wednesdays in my office,
2099 Bartlett. I would also be happy to meet with you at another time, to
be arranged in advance. If you would like to schedule such a meeting, please contact me in
person, by e-mail (edgar.boedeker@uni.edu), or give me a call at 273-7487.
Required Text: Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Ninth Edition (Wadsworth, 2005; ISBN: 9780534585051),
available at University Book & Supply (1099 W. 23rd St.) and numerous online venues.
Why Study Logic? A brilliant (but rather eccentric) Austrian named Ludwig
Wittgenstein (1889-1951) wrote what is surely the greatest philosophical work
on logic, the 50-page-long Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. When he was 23 years old, hard at
work on this book, he wrote to his friend and mentor, the logician Bertrand
Russell: “Logic must turn out to be of a totally different
kind than any other science.” Soon, he would discover that it is not a
“science” at all – at least not in the way that biology, chemistry, and perhaps
even higher mathematics are sciences. That is, logic does not try to make true
and abstract statements about particular kinds of things, such as living
things, molecules, or various kinds of numbers. (Statements, also known as
propositions, beliefs, etc., are whatever is either true or
false.) But this does not mean at all that logic is merely
“subjective.” so that I have my logic and you have yours. Rather, logic
occupies an absolutely central place within statements, and
especially within the relations among them. For example,
biology tells us that all whales are mammals, and that no mammals are fish.
From these two statements, we can logically draw the
conclusion, or “infer,” that no whales are fish (and thus that quite a number
of statements in Moby Dick are false).
Logic
occupies a similarly central place in ordinary, everyday speaking and thinking.
For example, if someone tells you that they’ll either study tonight or go to a
movie, and they don’t end up going to a movie tonight, then you can infer – at
least if what they’ve said is true – that they’ll study tonight. Logic examines
these and other kinds of inferential relations among
statements. Indeed, logic (as an academic discipline) can be defined as the study
of inferential relations among statements.
Thus
logic plays an absolutely central role in genuine
thinking (as opposed to merely experiencing sensations or images) and to
genuine language (as opposed to the sort of thing that parrots or newborn
infants do). For this reason, we already understand logic, and
have as long as we have been able to genuinely speak and think. What, then, is
the point of studying logic as an academic discipline?
The
answer is that the “natural” languages we speak, such as English or German, did
not arise solely for the purely logical purpose of making inferences between
some statements and others. Instead, they developed for a host of reasons, many
having to do with convenience and brevity. For such reasons, our languages
sometimes mislead us into inferring some statements that really don’t follow
from others, even though they might seem to.
One important goal of studying logic
is to make us aware of these kinds of errors so that we can correct them. This helps
us in three ways. First, the study of logic can help us avoid errors in
our own thinking, so that we can come to make only those
inferences that really do follow from what we believe. Second, logic can help
us be clearer when we present our thoughts, in speech or in writing, to others.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, studying logic can help us to avoid being
swayed by people who – whether they know it or not – try to persuade us to
accept some conclusion that really doesn’t follow from what we know to be true.
In this way, studying logic can help make us sharper, more critical readers,
thinkers, and citizens.
Course Content: This course will introduce you to different formal and
informal methods of analyzing, symbolizing, and evaluating arguments. Topics
covered will include sentence logic, basic predicate logic, categorical logic,
enthymemes, and informal fallacies.
Course Format: Class meetings will consist of lecture, questions,
discussion, and quizzes. Also be aware that there will
be a lot of homework for this class!
Grading: Your final grade will be determined as follows:
1. There will be about 12 quizzes, each worth about 5% of your
total grade, for a total of exactly 60% of your final grade.
2. The assigned homework will be worth a total of 40% of your
final grade. The homework due since the last quiz will be accepted only in
class at the beginning of the class meeting on the day on which it is due.
Homework will be graded with a “check” (full credit: 100%), “check/check-minus”
(75% credit), “check-minus” (half credit), “check-plus” (credit-and-a-half), or
“check/check-plus” (125% credit) based on the perception of your good-faith
effort in completing it. To save some time, I’d recommend typing the
assignments at the beginning and conclusion of the semester, since they involve
just text in ordinary English; and handwriting the rest of the assignments,
which involve logical symbols or diagrams.
3. You will have the opportunity to make up between two and four
quizzes of your choice. I’ll announce the exact number of quizzes during the
last week of the semester. These can be either quizzes that you missed or ones
on which you’d like to improve your score. The make-up quizzes will be graded
on a “no penalty” basis. That is, if your grade on the make-up quiz differs
from that on the original quiz for the corresponding week, only the higher of
the two grades will be counted. Naturally, the make-up quizzes will be
different from the quiz given in class of the corresponding week, although they
will cover roughly the same material. I plan to hold the make-up session on
our last regular class meeting; please see the end of the syllabus for
more on the make-up sessions. But if it turns out that we get
sufficiently behind schedule by the end of the semester, then the make-up
session will be held in our regular classroom at our officially-scheduled final
exam time; please see the very bottom of the syllabus for the date and
time. I plan to let you know the date of the make-up session the
Monday of the last day of classes.
Please don’t text on an
electronic device, wear headphones, etc. I’ve found that the use of
such devices is very distracting to me, reduces my ability to teach
effectively, and hence does a disservice to the students in the class. In
addition, some folks need a bit of practice in breaking the habit of feeling
the need to text during inappropriate times. Thus if you do this, I
will have to ask you to leave class.
Attendance: I reserve the right to take attendance at the beginning of each
class period. You are permitted two unexcused
absences during the semester. For each unexcused absence beyond
these two, your final grade will be reduced by one third of a letter
grade. For example, someone with a B+ average with 4 unexplained
absences (i.e., 2 more than the 2 allowed) will receive a B- in the
course. Although I’d appreciate it if you inform me prior to class that
you’ll be absent, not all announced absences will count as excused. The only excuses
I will accept are a weather emergency, illness documented by doctor’s note,
documented funeral, documented mandatory participation in UNI athletics, or documented
military service.
I realize that this is a fairly strict attendance
policy. I have instituted it mainly because much of the learning
that you will do in this course will take place in class. Asking
questions, raising objections, and listening to others are important skills
that you will get to practice in class discussions. In addition,
coming to class is necessary to doing well in this course. Finally,
if you initiate class discussion on a given topic, this will aid others in
coming to terms with the material covered.
Further note: Each semester, I teach almost 100 students. Although I give
you as much individual time and attention as I possibly can during the
semester, I will not be able to send you your individual grade for the course
at the end of the semester. I submit the grades to the Registrar as soon as I can
during the week of final exams, and ask you to kindly wait to see your grade
until it has been reported electronically.
Website: Helpful handouts to supplement the textbook are linked to my
teaching website: http://www.uni.edu/boedeker.
Please print these out and read them.
MAILSERV: From time to time, I will send announcements pertaining to the class via
e-mail. To facilitate our electronic communication, a MAILSERV
distribution list has been created for this class using your UNI e-mail addresses. It
will be your responsibility to check your e-mail regularly, read the
announcements, and print out all attachments. You
might want to purchase a 3-ring binder to organize and store the various
handouts for this class.
Cheating and plagiarism: It is your responsibility to read UNI’s Student Academic Ethics Policy (Chapter 3.01 of UNI’s Policies and Procedures Manual, available at https://www.uni.edu/policies/301). Using the terminology defined in this document, please
note the following:
Any student who commits a Level One violation will receive no credit for the entire assignment
in question.
Any student who commits a Level Two violation will receive no credit for the entire assignment
in question; and, in addition, a reduction in the course grade
by two full letter grades, i.e., 20% (e.g., from a B- to a D-).
Any student who
commits a Level Three violation is mandated by the University to receive a
disciplinary failure for the course. (This will automatically appear on the
student’s transcript.) As your professor, UNI also requires me to
reprimand the student in writing in the form of a letter addressed to the
student and copied to the Head of the Department of Philosophy and World
Religions, the student’s department head (if different) and the Office of the
Executive Vice President and Provost.
Disabilities: Please contact me if I can be of assistance in this area. All
qualified students with disabilities are protected under the provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A., Section 12101. The ADA
states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity.” Students who desire or need instructional
accommodations or assistance because of their disability should contact the office
of Student
Disability Services, located in 103 Student Health
Center (voice: 319-273-2677; for deaf or hard-of-hearing, use Relay 711).
Tentative Course Schedule:
The assignments are due in
class on the date indicated.
General note on the homework assignments: The answers to all exercises marked with a star are given at
the back of the book. Unless I specifically ask you to in a particular homework
assignment, I won’t require that you complete any of these exercises.
Nevertheless, you’re welcome to do so if you feel that you could use some extra
practice.
Note on
opening handouts: Sometimes, when using Google Chrome
to open an attached document, the default will be to open it as a google doc.
When this happens, special characters, such as our logical operators, will come
out wrong (often, I've seen, as parentheses). To make sure you're opening the
document as it should be, I've found the following trick to work:
1. Right click (not left click) on the link.
2. Select "Save link as..."
3. When a default file name appears, hit "Save"; the
file name should appear in the bottom left-hand corner of your screen.
4. Click on the file name, and the document in the proper format
should appear; this is the one to print out.
I. Some Basic Logical Concepts:
8 Jan.: Introduction.
10 Jan.: Read section 1.1 and this handout. Do exercises 1.1: I: 1-30 and II: 1-10. Please note
that on this assignment, as well as others throughout the semester involving
English rather than logical symbols, you should feel free to use ellipses “[…]”
to abbreviate longer sentences; do make it clear exactly which sentence you’re
indicating, however, by including its first and last couple of
words. Do not include premise or conclusion indicator words (e.g.,
“since.” “therefore,” etc.) in your premises or conclusions; such
words only serve to indicate that what follows is a premise or
conclusion, but are not part of these statements.
12 Jan.: Read section 1.2, but only pp. 14-15,
on arguments; and pp. 19-23, on explanations and conditional statements; also
read this handout. Do exercises 1.2: I:
1-35. Since explanations and conditional statements are the only
kinds of passages we’ve dealt with that don’t contain arguments, change the
second sentence of the instructions (p. 23) to the following: “For those that
are not, write, where appropriate, either ‘Explanation’ (stating the explanandum, i.e., the statement explained);
‘Conditional statement’; or ‘Other non-argumentative passage.’”
17 Jan.: Do exercises 1.2: II: 1-10 and
VI: 1-10.
II. Propositional Logic:
19 Jan.: Read section 6.1, this handout, and this handout. Do exercises 6.1: I: 1-25,
including those exercises marked with an “*”.
22 Jan.: Do exercises 6.1: I: 26-50,
including those exercises marked with an “*”.
24 Jan.: Do exercises 6.1: II: 1-20
and III: 1-10.
26 Jan.: Read section 6.2. Do exercises 6.2:
I: 1-10.
29 Jan.: Do exercises 6.2: II:
1-15, III: 1-25, and IV: 1-15.
31 Jan.: Read section 6.3, this handout, and this handout. Do exercises 6.3: I: 1-13 and II:
1-15.
2 Feb.: Do exercises 6.3: III:
1-10, including the exercises marked with a star.
5 Feb.: catch-up day.
7 Feb.: Read section 6.4 and this handout. Do exercises 6.4: I: 1-7 and 9; and
6.4: II: 1-7. Change the instructions in 6.5: I to “Determine whether the
following symbolized arguments are valid or invalid by constructing a truth
table for each,” and do exercises 6.5: I: 1, 2, and 4.
9 Feb.: Read section 6.5. Change the
instructions in 6.3: I to “Use indirect truth-tables to determine whether the following symbolized
statements are tautologous, self-contradictory, or contingent,”
and do exercises 6.3: I: 14 and 15. (Hint for exercise 14: Since this is a
conditional statement and there’s only one combination
of truth-values under which a conditional statement is false, try to make it
false; if this proves impossible, then the statement is a tautology. Exercise 15 is quite challenging; give it a
try but don’t spend too much time on it.)
Change the instructions in 6.4: I and 6.4:
II to “Use indirect truth-tables to determine whether the
following arguments are valid or invalid,” and do exercises 6.4:
I: 8 and 10, and 6.4: II: 8-20. (You’ll see that using
indirect truth-tables will save you a lot of “busy work” here.) Do exercises
6.5: I: 3, 5-8, and 11-13; and exercises 6.5: II: 1-3 and 6-8.
12 Feb.: Change the instructions
in 1.5: II to “Use indirect truth-tables to determine
whether the following arguments are valid or invalid,” and do exercises 1.5:
II: 1, 2, 3, 4, including those exercises marked with a star.
14 Feb.: Read section 6.6, especially
the summary on p. 327. Also read the summary on pp.
336-7, and this handout. Do exercises 6.6:
I: 1-20. Please note that the last sentence of the instructions for 6.6: I is
misleading, since it’s not the case
that all arguments without a named form (modus ponens, modus tollens,
etc.) are invalid. That is, some arguments without a named form are valid.
16 Feb.: Do exercises 6.6: II:
1-20. Please note that the last sentence of the instructions for 6.6: II is
misleading, for the same reason as was mentioned in the previous assignment.
Also do exercises 6.6: III: 1-10 and IV: 1-10.
19 Feb.: catch-up day.
III. Predicate Logic:
21 Feb: Read section 8.1, this handout, and this handout. Do exercises 8.1: 1-30, including
those exercises marked with a star.
23 Feb.: Do exercises 8.1: 31-60,
including those exercises marked with a star.
26 Feb.: Read section 4.7
and this handout. Change the instructions
in 4.7: I to “Express the following statements in
predicate logic,” and do exercises 4.7: I: 1-30. Please use just two predicate-letters to express
each proposition. In some cases, this will involve combining more than one
concept into a single predicate. Feel free to make up your own
predicate-letters or to use the predicate-letters in this homework
help. Also make sure to save this
homework assignment, as you’ll be referring to it later.
28 Feb.: Do exercises 4.7: I: 31-60,
using the same instructions as in the previous assignment and the predicate
letters given in this homework help. Make sure to save this
homework assignment, as you’ll be referring to it later. Also read
from p. 411 to the top of p. 412 (at the beginning of section 8.3), summarized
in this handout.
2 Mar.: Use predicate logic to do
exercises 5.7: III: 1-10, including those exercises
marked with a star. You’ll be using the inference-rules of pure
hypothetical syllogism, transposition, and double
negation (look them up in the index at the back of the book), modified
to apply to predicate logic. Note that in all of the exercises except 1 and 3
you’ll need to specify the “universe of discourse,” i.e., the set of things
that all propositions in the argument are talking about. For example, the
universe of discourse in exercise 2 is persons; the universe of
discourse in exercise 4 is birds; the universe of discourse in
exercise 5 is fruits, etc. Make sure to reduce the number of terms
whenever possible; that is, if two predicates occurring in an argument have
(close to) opposite meanings (e.g., “dances” and “declines to dance”), use a
single predicate and its negation (e.g., “Dx”
and “~Dx”) to express both. (In exercise 6,
use either the predicate “x is a daughter” or “x is a
son,” but not both.)
5 Mar.: catch-up day.
IV. Categorical Propositions
7 Mar.: Read section 4.1. Do exercises 4.1:
1-8. Also read section 4.2, but only p. 186 through the second
full paragraph on p. 187. Also read section 4.3, but only from
the bottom of p. 192 (under “Venn Diagrams”) through the end of 4.3 (on p.
198). Please note that in this course the only interpretation of categorical
logic that we’ll be using is the “modern,” or “Boolean,” standpoint – not the
ancient and medieval “traditional,” or “Aristotelian,” one. Also do exercises
4.3: I: 1-8.
9 Mar.: Change the instructions in 4.3: II to
“Use Venn diagrams to determine whether the following immediate inferences are
valid or invalid from the Boolean standpoint,” and do exercises 4.3: II: 1-15.
Also change the instructions in 4.5: I to “Use Venn
diagrams to determine whether the following immediate inferences are valid or
invalid from the Boolean standpoint,” and do exercises 4.5:
I: 1-8, including those exercises marked with a star.
In order to do the assignments due this day, use the “modern,” or
“Boolean” square of opposition. As discussed on pp. 196-198,
and immediate inference is an argument with just one
statement as its premise and just one statement as its conclusion. Here’s
how it works for the four forms of categorical propositions discussed so far:
“All S are P” is true if and only if “Some S are not P” is false.
“Some S are not P” is true if and only if “All S are P” is false.
“No S are P” is true if and only if “Some S are P” is false.
“Some S are P” is true if and only if “No S are P” is false.
No other immediate inferences from one of these four standard-form
categorical propositions to another are valid. For example, the
following immediate inference is invalid:
Premise: “All S is P”
Conclusion: “Some S is P”
19 Mar.: In section 4.4,
read just the second and third paragraphs on p. 202 (where “term
complement” is defined), and commit this handout to memory. Also read as much of
this handout as you need to understand the material. Then change the
instructions in 4.4: I to “Ignore the second column. Instead, begin with the
statement and its truth-value given in the first column. The third column
provides a new statement. In the fourth column, supply the truth-value of this new
statement when the first statement has the truth-value given in the first
column; your answers in the fourth column will be either “true,” “false,” or
“undetermined.” The new statements in the third column will be as follows:
1.
No non-B are A.
2.
Some non-B are non-A.
3.
No A are B.
4.
All non-B are A.
5.
Some B are not non-A.
6.
Some non-A are not B.
Change the instructions in 4.4: II to “Supply the truth-value (true,
false, or undetermined) of the new statement when the given statement is true.”
The new statements will be as follows:
1a. All storms intensified by global warming are hurricanes.
1b. No completely successful procedures are sex-change operations.
1c.
Some works that celebrate the revolutionary spirit are murals by Diego Rivera.
1d.
Some substances with a crystalline structure are not forms of carbon.
2a. No
radically egalitarian societies are societies that preserve individual
liberties.
2b. All
cult leaders are people who brainwash their followers.
2c.
Some college football coaches are not people who slip money to their players.
2d.
Some budgetary cutbacks are actions unfair to the poor.
3a. All
physicians eligible to practice are physicians with valid licenses.
3b. No migrants
denied asylum are persecuted migrants.
3c.
Some politicians who want to increase taxes are politicians who defend Social
Security.
3d. Some proponents of civil unions are not proponents of gay
marriage.
Change the instructions in 4.4: III to “Determine whether the
following immediate inferences are valid or invalid from the Boolean
standpoint,” and do exercises 4.4 III: 1-20.
21 Mar.: Re-read section 4.7. Do
exercises 4.7: I: 1-30, including those exercises marked with a star. Use the
same capital letters you used earlier (to express predicates) now to express
terms, as given in this homework
help.
23 Mar.: Do exercises 4.7: I: 31-60,
including those exercises marked with a star. Use the same capital letters you
used earlier (to express predicates) now to express terms, as given in
this homework help.
V. Categorical syllogisms:
26 Mar.: Read enough of pp. 237-238 in Section
5.1 to understand the concepts of syllogism, categorical
syllogism, and the first three conditions of standard
form (our use of Venn diagrams allows us to ignore the fourth
condition). Read section 5.2, but only from the beginning to
the top of p. 251 (since we’ll be using just the Boolean – not the Aristotelian
– interpretation of categorical propositions). Change the instructions in 5.1:
I, 5.1: II, and 5.2: I to just “Use Venn diagrams to determine
whether the following standard-form categorical syllogisms are valid or invalid
from the Boolean standpoint,” and do exercises 5.1: I: 1-5 and
II: 1-10; and 5.2: I: 1-20.
28 Mar.: Do exercises 5.2: II: 1-10. Note that
the instructions are misleading, since there’s no such thing as “the” (one and
only) conclusion that is validly implied by a pair of propositions. So if the
two propositions taken together imply a conclusion that’s not logically
equivalent to either of the premises, then write this down in standard form.
(For example, don’t write down “No M are P”
as a conclusion that follows from a premise of the form “No P are M,”
even though this inference is of course valid.) If the premises don’t entail
any such conclusion, then write “no conclusion.” Fortunately, the
use of Venn diagrams renders the whole discussion in 5.3 unnecessary, so you
don’t have to read it. Instead, change the instructions in 5.3: II to just “Use
Venn diagrams to determine whether the following categorical syllogisms are
valid or invalid from the Boolean standpoint,” and do
exercises 5.3: II: 1-10. Also read section 5.4. Ignore
the phrase “or the rules for syllogisms” in the second sentence in the
instructions for exercises 5.4, and do exercises 5.4: 1-10.
30 Mar.: Read section 5.5. Ignore the phrase
“or the rules for syllogisms” in the first sentence in the instructions for
exercises 5.5, and do 5.5: 1-15. Also, change the instructions in 1.5:
I and 1.5: II to “Use Venn diagrams to show why the
following standard-form categorical syllogisms are invalid from the Boolean standpoint,”
and do 1.5: I: 1-10 (including those exercises marked
with a star), and 1.5: II: 5, 6, 8 (these three
exercises are a little tricky).
2 Apr.: Catch-up day.
VI. Enthymemes
4 Apr.: Read section 5.6. Do exercises 5.6:
I: 1-15 along with 5.6: II: 1-15. To do these, first complete the
Venn diagrams for either the two premises or one premise and the
conclusion. Then do your best to supply either (1) the conclusion or
(2) the other premise. If it turns out that there’s no way to fill
in such that the argument is valid, then indicate what would be the best
guess at (1) or (2). If there’s no way to supply (1) or (2)
that would render the argument valid, then state that the enthymeme is invalid.
6 Apr.: Do exercises 5.6: III:
1-10.
9 Apr.: Change the instructions in 2.1
to “Treat the following arguments as enthymemes. Determine whether the missing
statement is a premise or a conclusion. Then supply the missing statement,
attempting whenever possible to convert the enthymeme into a valid argument.”
Do exercises 2.1 II: 1-10, including those exercises
marked with a star.
VII. Informal logic:
Please note: for all of the
assignments for the rest of the semester, please also do the exercises marked
with stars.
11 Apr.: Read section 1.3 and this handout (again, especially the parts
on inductive logic). Do exercises 1.3: I: 1-30 and III:
1-15.
13 Apr.: Read section 1.4. Do exercises 1.4:
I: 1-15, II: 1-15, III: 1-20, and V: 1-15.
16 Apr.: Read 3.1 (“Fallacies in
General”) and 3.5 (pp. 167-172) to solidify the basic idea of an informal
fallacy, but don’t worry about the fact that most of the fallacies mentioned
there will be covered in future reading assignments. Do exercises
3.1: 1-10. If an argument commits a formal fallacy
that has a name, give its name (see 6.6: pp. 323, 326-327, and 329-330), which
will be either “affirming the consequent” or “denying the antecedent.”
The following chart may help keep things a bit clear:
Arguments:
bad: good:
formal invalid deductive valid
deductive
Logic:
informal fallacious inductive or deductive sound deductive or cogent inductive
Also read, in 3.2, section 4
(“Argument Against the Person [Argumentum ad Hominem]”: pp.
116-119, including the Tu quoque variety); and, in 3.3 (“Fallacies of Weak
Induction”) sections 9 (“Appeal to Unqualified Authority”: pp. 128-129) and 10
(“Appeal to Ignorance”: pp. 130-131). These fallacies apply only
to inductive (not deductive) arguments. Much
of this material and the material dealt with in subsequent assignments is
summed up in this handout.
Do the following exercises:
3.2: I: 2, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24;
3.3: I: 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14;
3.3: III: 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29;
3.4: III: 1, 9, 16, 17, 32, 36, 45; and
3.5: I: 6, 10, 14, 18, 24, 32, 40, 43, 44, 49, 51, 52,
53, 56.
In these exercises, whenever possible treat the argument
as an enthymeme, and state the missing but assumed premise
that would render the argument valid. Note that, in general, the argument
is weak if this missing assumption is false (and, in
general, strong if this missing assumption is true).
18 Apr.: Read the rest of 3.3
(“Fallacies of Weak Induction”), i.e., sections 11-14 (pp. 131-138); this
covers the fallacies of Hasty Generalization, False Cause, Slippery Slope, and
Weak Analogy.
Do the following exercises:
3.3: I: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15;
3.3: III: 1, 7, 11, 15, 19, 27, 28, 30;
3.4: III: 8, 11, 13, 22, 33, 37, 38, 46, 48; and
3.5: I: 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 29, 33, 36, 40,
41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 58, 60.
As with the previous set of exercises, in these exercises,
whenever possible treat the argument as an enthymeme, and state
the missing but assumed premise that would render the argument valid. Note
that, in general, the argument is weak if this missing
assumption is false (and, in general, strong if this missing
assumption is true). These fallacies apply only to inductive (not
deductive) arguments.
Also read, in 3.4, section 18 (“Suppressed Evidence:” pp.
150-151). Note that arguments that commit the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
are inductive, weak, and hence uncogent, even though without supplying the
relevant missing information they might appear to be strong. In these exercises, state what “evidence” is
not mentioned as a premise, but that, if true, would render the argument
weak.
Do the following exercises:
3.4: I: 9, 16;
3.4: III: 30; and
3.5: I: 1, 13, 28, 30, 54, 59.
The remainder of the assignments
cover fallacies that apply to either inductive or deductive arguments:
20 Apr.: Read, in 3.2, section 6 (“Straw
Man”: 120-121); and, in 3.4, sections 16 (“Complex Question”: pp. 148-149) and
17 (“False Dichotomy”: pp. 149-150). Many of these arguments can be construed
as valid, where those that commit fallacies are valid
but unsound; i.e., the fallacies assume a false premise, whether
explicitly or implicitly.
Do the following exercises:
3.2: I: 8, 19;
3.3: III 10;
3.4: I: 1, 5, 11, 17, 18, 22;
3.4: III: 15, 20, 25, 44, 50; and
3.5: I: 3, 11, 17, 20, 37, 45.
If any of these arguments commits a fallacy (and most, but not
all, of them do), explain why it does. That is, state (6) how
the argument mischaracterizes what someone else has said; (16) what the two
statements of a complex question are, and why one of these statements might be
false; or (17) what disjunction is assumed and why it might be false, i.e., why
there might be more than just the two alternatives mentioned in the
disjunction.
23 Apr: Read, in 3.2, section 8 (“Red
Herring”: pp. 122-123); and, in 3.4, sections 15 (“Begging the Question” [Petitio Principii]:
pp. 145-147), 19 (“Equivocation”: pp. 152-153), and 20 (“Amphiboly”: pp.
153-154). Unlike the exercises in the previous assignment, the arguments in
this assignment that commit fallacies generally don’t do so because they assume
some false premise. Arguments that commit the fallacies of Red Herring or
Begging the Question may well be sound (or cogent), but are fallacious because
they still fail to meet the pragmatic goal of arguments: giving someone a good
reason to believe something that the person doesn’t already believe. A Red
Herring is an argument that isn’t on the same topic as one’s opponent’s
argument; and an argument “begs the question” if it assumes a premise – whether
explicitly or implicitly – that’s at least as controversial as the conclusion.
Equivocations and amphibolies are arguments that are really invalid (or weak),
but might appear valid (or strong) because of a wrong interpretation of the
meaning of at least one statement in the argument. Equivocations are based on
interpreting two (or more) occurrences of the same word as
having the same meaning, whereas in fact they have different meanings;
amphibolies are based in misinterpreting the meaning of a statement that’s
ambiguous because of its grammar.
Do the following exercises:
3.2: I: 3, 13, 21;
3.3: III: 13, 24;
3.4: I: 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25;
3.4: III: 2, 4, 7, 14, 23, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42; and
3.5: I: 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26, 28, 28, 30, 31, 32, 38,
39, 41, 42, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59.
If any of these arguments commits a fallacy (and most, but not
all, of them do), explain why it does. That is, state (8) why
the argument given isn’t relevant to the opponent’s argument; (15) what premise
– whether explicit or implicit – that’s no less controversial than the
conclusion is “begged.” or assumed; (19) which word is interpreted equivocally
(i.e., with different meanings in different occurrences) so as to render the
argument weak or invalid; or (20) which statement in an amphiboly is
misinterpreted and what the statement really means.
Please note: By this
day (Monday), I hope to have sent out via e-mail indicating just how many
quizzes you may make up (on Friday), as well as a list indicating roughly what
material the various quizzes covered. Attached to this e-mail should be a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing your grades on the quizzes. This should
help you decide which make-up’s you’ll take, and what to study in order to do
well on them. Thus please check your e-mail
tonight (Monday).
25 Apr. (No homework due): My plan for
this class is as follows. First, I’ll open the floor to any questions you might
have on informal logic. Second, we’ll have our final quiz, on informal logic.
The rest of class will be devoted to answering your questions on anything we’ve
covered during this course – especially any lingering questions that you have
about material to be covered in the make-up’s. Thus please come
to class with questions!
Please note: We hope
to have graded your quizzes from today (Wednesday) by this evening and entered
them in the gradesheet. This should help you
finalize your decision as to which quizzes you’ll want to make up. Thus please check your e-mail Wednesday night, and bring the
printout with you to class for Friday’s make-up session.
27 Apr: Make-up’s. In this class period, you
will receive a packet containing each makeup quiz, so you don’t need to inform
me ahead of time which quizzes you’ll be making up. Be sure, however, to
indicate, on the first sheet of the packet, which quizzes you’re making up.
Monday, April 30, 1:00-2:50 p.m., in our regular classroom: This time will be reserved for make-up’s, but we’ll meet only if
we don’t have enough time during the semester to hold the scheduled make-up
session on Friday, the last day of regular classes.