Inductive Logic - Unit 2

A type of logic that studies methods for evaluating arguments where the premises make the conclusion probable, but do not guarantee it.

A type of logic that studies methods for evaluating whether premises guarantee the conclusion.

An argument where it's likely (but not certain) that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

An argument where it's unlikely that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

A strong inductive argument with all true premises.

A type of inductive argument where a percentage of a group has a certain characteristic, and a specific case in that group is considered.

The degree to which an inductive argument is likely to have a true conclusion if its premises are true. This is different from deductive logic, which is either valid or invalid; and it is measured on a spectrum from likely to unlikely.

A weak inductive argument or a strong inductive argument with at least one false premise.

A type of inductive argument based on a sample to make generalizations about the whole population. It assumes the sample is representative of the population.

A sample where every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected.

The size of the sample must be large enough to be representative of the population. Larger samples are more accurate.

Identifying a common factor (A) present whenever the effect (B) is present. This suggests A may cause B.

Comparing two cases: one with the effect (B) and one without (B). If the suspected cause (C) is absent when the effect (B) is absent, it supports C as a possible cause.

If X occurs, Y will always occur. X is enough to guarantee Y, but Y can happen without X.

Y can only happen if X occurs. X is required for Y, but Y doesn't necessarily mean X happened.

Combines the method of agreement and method of difference to strengthen the argument that A causes B.

The closeness of the percentage in the general claim to the conclusion determines the strength of the statistical syllogism. The closer the percentage, the stronger the argument.

The relevance of the reference class to the attribute class impacts the strength of a statistical syllogism. The more relevant, the stronger the argument.

A logical error where an arguer fails to consider all relevant evidence when choosing the reference class for a statistical syllogism, weakening the argument.

An argument that relies on the credibility of a source to support a claim. For example: 'Dr. Smith, a renowned cardiologist, says smoking is harmful. Therefore, smoking is harmful.'

A source of information that is trustworthy and knowledgeable about the subject at hand.

A logical error where an argument from authority is weakened by misrepresenting or misinterpreting what the authority actually said.

An argument with an implied premise or conclusion, often found in everyday conversations or texts.

A visual representation of an argument's structure, showing how premises support the conclusion.

A word or phrase that signals a premise in an argument, such as 'because', 'since', or 'for'.

A word or phrase that signals the conclusion of an argument, such as 'therefore', 'so', or 'thus'.

A premise that supports another premise, rather than directly supporting the main conclusion.

A faithful interpretation of an argument that accurately reflects the author's original meaning, intent, and reasoning.

A misrepresentation of an argument that distorts the original meaning, often by using misleading language or rephrasing the argument in a way that weakens or changes its intended conclusion.

Interpreting an argument in a way that assumes the author is making a reasonable and logical point, even if their argument has flaws or needs clarification.

When interpreting an argument, it's best to choose the meaning that makes the author's reasoning as logical and valid as possible.

A sub-conclusion is a conclusion reached within an argument that supports a larger, overall conclusion (final conclusion). Ensure you don't mistake a sub-conclusion for the main point.

Explicit premises are stated openly in an argument, while implicit premises are assumed or implied but not directly stated. Ensure to make implicit premises clear and understandable in a charitable way.

When analyzing an argument, it's crucial to identify and clearly state any unstated premises (implicit assumptions) in a way that is faithful to the author's intended meaning.

When making implicit premises explicit, strive to interpret the author's intentions in a way that is as reasonable and logical as possible, even if their reasoning has flaws.

Words or phrases that weaken the strength of a claim, making it less assertive. Examples include 'maybe,' 'perhaps,' 'it seems that,' and 'in my opinion.'

Words or phrases that strengthen a claim, making it more assertive. Examples include 'definitely,' 'certainly,' and 'without a doubt.'

Using the same terms or concepts consistently throughout an argument to maintain logical connections between premises and conclusions.

To maintain a consistent logical structure within an argument by using the same terms or concepts throughout, making the reasoning clear and avoiding potential confusion.

The connection between premises and conclusion in an argument, where the premises provide evidence or support for the conclusion.

In the argument 'All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido is a mammal,' the premise 'All dogs are mammals' logically links to the conclusion 'Fido is a mammal.'

A logical link ensures that the conclusion follows logically from the premises, making the argument more convincing and less vulnerable to logical fallacies.

An argument presented in a clear and concise way, employing uniform language, logical links, and a well-defined structure to enhance its persuasiveness.