Argument

• Argument is the use of evidence to support claims.
• Arguments consist of a series of propositions that claim the truth of something
• Arguments are derived from the Latin word "arguere," which means to prove, show, or accuse
• Arguments consist of statements divided into two groups: Conclusion (the statement that bears the truth claim) and Premise (the reasons that support or justify the conclusion)
• Forms of reasoning in arguments include inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning is used when evidence and facts provided to support the conclusion only make it seem likely to be true
• Deductive reasoning has logical certitude because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises
• Inference is the process of deriving a conclusion from the premises
• Propositions are declarative sentences that assert something and serve as the building blocks of an argument
• Compound propositions are statements consisting of more than one assertion or truth claim
• Premise refers to the propositions that support and justify the conclusion
• Conclusion refers to the propositions derived from the premises through the process of reasoning
• Valid arguments have a logical flow or structure, with the premises supporting the conclusion so that the argument appears to be self-evident and logically true
• An argument can be valid but have false components or premises, making it valid yet unsound
• Sound arguments are concerned with both the validity and the truth value of the component propositions in an argument
• Types of Fallacies:

  • Informal fallacy happens when the argument's reasoning is defective because of its content
  • Formal fallacy happens when the argument is faulty because of an error in its form and structure
• Fallacy is defined as faulty reasoning used to make an illogical argument convincing
• Formal Fallacies:

  • Only found in deductive arguments
  • Due to an error in the structure and form of the argument, the conclusion drawn becomes logically uncertain making the argument invalid
• Syllogism:

  • A kind of deductive argument composed of at least three propositions
  • The conclusion is drawn from the two other premises
• Valid Argument Forms:

  • Hypothetical syllogism
  • Disjunctive syllogism
• Hypothetical Syllogism:

  • Pure Hypothetical Syllogism is exclusively composed of hypothetical or conditional propositions
  • Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism is not exclusively composed of conditional propositions
• Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent):

  • Conclusion is drawn by affirming the antecedent
  • Consists of at least three propositions: A conditional proposition, a proposition that affirms the antecedent, and a conclusion that affirms the consequent
• Modus Tollens (Negating the Consequent):

  • Conclusion is drawn by denying the consequent
  • Consists of at least three propositions: A conditional proposition, a proposition denying the consequent, and a conclusion denying the antecedent
• Disjunctive Syllogism:

  • Composed of a disjunctive proposition, a negation of any of its disjuncts, and a conclusion affirming the other disjunct
  • A disjunctive proposition asserts that one of its disjuncts must be true
• Invalid Argument Forms:

  • Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
  • Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
  • Invalid Disjunctive Syllogism
• Informal Fallacies:

  • Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity)
  • Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
  • Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
• Ad Hominem:

  • Attacking another person's character instead of the argument
  • Makes a personal attack on a person's character as the basis for the listener to accept the argument
• Red Herring:

  • Arguing for another topic slightly related to the original issue to confuse the listener
  • Involves changing the topic and drawing a conclusion from that new topic
• Strawman Fallacy:

  • Misrepresents opponent's argument and refutes that misrepresentation
  • Similar to attacking a strawman in place of a real person
• Begging the Question (Petitio Principii):

  • Conclusion is the same as the premise
  • Also known as circular argument
• Complex Question:

  • Deceives the listener into accepting a claim by concealing an assertion or conclusion in a question
  • Also known as a loaded question
• False Cause (Post Hoc fallacy):

  • Inferring a prior event to be the cause of a subsequent event
  • Also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this")
• Slippery Slope:

  • Asserts that a small event leads to a chain of events that would lead to disaster or an unlikely scenario
  • Uncertain whether the event would lead to a specific event or not
• Fallacy of Division:

  • Part of something is assumed to have the same characteristic as the whole
  • Also known as the 'whole to part fallacy'
• Hasty Generalization:

  • Assumes individual members' characteristics are the characteristic of everyone in a group
  • Generalization is not certain and there may be exemptions
• Fallacy of Equivocation:

  • A word is used in two different ways
  • Involves using a phrase or word with two different meanings in the same argument
• Weak Analogy:

  • Uses irrelevant or inapplicable analogies to a particular case in the argument
  • What is being compared are not analogous
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance):

  • Argues something is true because it has not been proven false, or false if it has not been proven true
  • Uses lack of evidence or ignorance as the reason for a claim
• False Dilemma:

  • Erroneously limits the argument into two options when there are other exemptions or grey areas
  • False assumption that if one cannot be classified in a certain category, it must belong to the other
• Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to False Authority):

  • Uses a person who is not an expert in the field as an authority
  • The person used as a reference has no authority or expertise over the matter