Pcomm Finals Reviewer PDF

PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER LESSON 9 be as extended and as complete as possible in ARGUMENTATION, DEBATE, PROPOSITION & IS...

PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER LESSON 9 be as extended and as complete as possible in ARGUMENTATION, DEBATE, PROPOSITION & ISSUES order to guarantee that all NATURE OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE consideration be aired, ARGUMENTATION – Form of considered, and communication wherein speaker uses a defended As if the arguer saying “you reason-giving discourse in order to seek may use as much time as I acceptance of a particular claim in have (or as much time as opposition to a claim advanced by others. you need) to criticize my claims and reasons” DEBATE – Formal oral controversy between Commitment to Rationality Refers to the willingness of two opposing teams; one attempts to the arguer to proceed persuade or convince audience while the logically. other team reject the proposition under The arguer is committed to consideration. giving reasons that he thinks that will support his All debates may be considered as form of claims and ought to be argumentation but not the other way accepted by unsure or around. doubtful listeners. Argumentation is used to subsume (to When one argues that smoking in public spaces place in a more comprehensive category) should be banned by law, someone else has the the meaning of the word "debate. right to say “NO” (convention of bilaterality) & the Both “fight” for intellectual supremacy right to assert a contrary position (the fairness which the victory rests to the team who doctrine). thinks problems through most effectively “Game” calls for special skills and abilities in All parties to the argument have a right to ask, thinking and presenting one’s thought to “why do you believe that” (convention of others. rationality). One party faces the possibility that his Should not be mistaken for “verbal opponent will be able to convince him that wrangling” which is nothing but a word war smokers have as much right as non-smokers do in between speakers that say things any public places (convention of self-risk) which way they please. GENERAL RULES IN DEBATE argumentation and debate are In addition to social conventions and technical communicative forms that are RULE procedures, others rules that governs debaters are GOVERNED. as follows: there are specialized rules that governs the The question or topic for debate is stated in act of arguing. the form of a proposition or resolution. Instead of merely offering information or Speakers are divided into two teams: an attempting to persuade others that you AFFIRMATIVE (GOVERNMENT SIDE) who are right and they are wrong, the arguer upholds the proposition and a NEGATIVE commits himself to communicating (OPPOSITION SIDE) who opposes it. according to certain rules, especially (A) The number of debaters on each side is the social conventions and (B) technical same; and the time allotted to each side regulations. are also approximately the same. SOCIAL CONVENTIONS IN ARGUMENTATION AND Each speaker gives an opening or DEBATE constructive speech, and usually a closing Convention of Argumentation requires at speech known as a rebuttal. Constructive least 2 persons or 2 Bilaterality speech is called substantive speech while competing messages That in effect, the arguer is rebuttal is called reply in some debate implicitly and explicitly types. saying that he is presenting The two sides alternate in presenting their a message which can be arguments, with the affirmative opening examined and evaluated by others and closing the debate. Convention of Self-Risk The characteristic of A moderator or chairman presides over the argumentation in which discussion; and the ordinary rules of the arguer assumes parliamentary procedure apply. certain risks brought about by his implicit or explicit calling for a critique of his ideas from others The Fairness Doctrine The idea that argumentation ought to PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER NATURE OF ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE (WHY IS PROPOSITION OF FACT IT RELEVANT?) Questions of fact pertain to events that have Argumentation is a part of a person’s life happened, are happening, or will happen. It represents a special type of communicative It aims to establish the truthfulness or falsity of transactions in all cultures an In the Philippines, many of the most important act of judgement. executive, legislative and judicial decision are It aims at belief and answers the question: “Is made via argumentation this Indeed, argumentation is universal, assertion true?” indispensable and interdisciplinary PROPOSITION OF EXPLANATION It is considered as the lifeblood of a Affirm why something has happened, is democratic society wherein it can occur both happening, or will happen. public and non-public occasions. Deal with complex cause and effect Political Assemblies relationships, which by their nature are not Business meetings of organizations and clubs subject to direct verification. Formal meetings of organizations PROPOSITION OF VALUE Problem-solving discussions Assert that some individual, institution, Classrooms program, or policy possesses or lacks a CONVICTION AND PERSUATION certain desirable or undesirable characteristic. CONVICTION – Is a process that creates PROPOSITION OF POLICY different belief or disbelief through an appeal Also called as normative statements, are the to reason most complex type of proposition for they PERSUASION – Is a process that creates belief involve all three of the preceding types. or disbelief through an appeal to the Such questions assert that a new program or emotions. policy should be instituted. PERSONAL PROOF – refers to the perception Implied evaluations of a given policy and may other people have on the persuader; whether be paraphrased as “such- and-such a policy is they perceive him as having competence, the best of available means to a certain integrity, goodwill, and credibility. desired end.” PSYCHOLOGICAL PROOF – Appeals to the PROPOSITION OF POLICY (CONT.) attitude and motives of the listener. Three types of policy questions LOGICAL PROOF – Refers to the way the 1. A new policy may be a program for persuader moves from data or evidence to a something that is lacking or non-existent. conclusion. 2. An alternative program PROPOSITION 3. Rejection or discontinuation of the present In argumentation and debate, proposition policy (resolution) is a statement of judgement that THE PROPOSITION CHARACTERISTICS identifies the issues in controversy. The characteristics of a good proposition should be A statement that can be affirmed or denied. debatable, expressed in an affirmative statement, It may function as a premise or a conclusion in contains one judgement with terms that are not too a syllogism and can be expressed in any kind vague or ambiguous. or grammatical construction such as 1. Debatability implies that there must be interrogative, optative or exclamatory conflicts of opinion or a conflict of interest sentences. before a discussion can take place. It Presented in a debate as affirmative or should represent a judgment or an negative inference and can be believed or wherein each debater has to gain belief or disbelieved, doubted or denied. persuade their audience on their side of the 2. A good proposition should also be argument by providing evidences that expressed in an affirmative statement. supports their propositions. 3. Another characteristic is that it should TYPES OF PROPOSITIONS contain only one judgment. Having two 1. Proposition of fact distinct proposals which could be debated 2. Proposition of Explanation separately and using a prejudiced term 3. Proposition of Value such as using the word “immoral” that 4. Proposition of Policy entails a judgement to be proved violates this criterion so debaters should be mindful of these errors. PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER 4. Lastly, to have a sound debate proposition, THE MEANING OF BURDEN OF REBUTTAL the terms shouldn’t be too vague or It may be related to affirmative and negative ambiguous. Ambiguous terms could cause side. confusion when used especially if these As once an affirmative has made out his prima terms encompass several meanings. Terms facie case, it is now the duty of the negative should be understandable such that both side to defend itself by the evidence and sides readily agree on its meaning. arguments overthrown by the affirmative. MEANING OF ISSUES IN A DEBATE SETTING: An issue is something that has at least two If the negative fails to overcome the prima sides, an idea that can be debated. facie case, it loses. A point on which an audience will require If it succeeds, the affirmative is to present support to give their agreement to a claim. arguments to refute the evidence adduced Discovering issues is a matter of understanding by the negative. what the audience will require as support The duty now of the affirmative is also called given the claim that you are making. as burden of rebuttal Issues define the points of dispute between The burden may be shifted back and forth, those having the argument about a between the affirmative and the negative proposition. within the controversy, or the vital point. ISSUES IN COURT TYPES OF ISSUES In legal use, an "issue" means a point disputed POTENTIAL ISSUES by parties to a lawsuit. Legal issue may also These are issues that give relevance and are refer to either a person's lineal descendants or applicable to the proposition. It is normally being a group of securities offered for sale. An issue utilized by the affirmative side to formulate their of law is a question of how a law is applied prima facie case as they also act as a rather than a question of fact. fundamental element towards the The starting point of debaters and proposition. For instance, in the proposition on the argumentations abolition of lotto, the question that may possibly ISSUES IN GENERAL ARGUMENTS arise as a potential issue is, "will the abolition The primary goal of an argument is to show contribute to the economic growth of the that some proposition is true, while the primary country?” goal of an explanation is to show why it is true. ADMITTED ISSUES In an argument, we reason forward from the These are issues that the negative side premises to the conclusion; in an explanation refuses or admits to exist and they can we reason backwards from a fact to the be controverted by the opposition, however, these cause or reason for that fact. can also become future problems proven by Instead of merely offering information or factual evidence on which no conflict of attempting to persuade that your claim is right opinions can contend. n the proposition on lotto, or wrong, there are specialized rules that the negative side would do well to acknowledge govern an act of arguing. that, despite being legal, lotto is still a form of The act of reasoning and proving a point. gambling. MEANING OF BURDEN OF PROOF STOCK ISSUES It is party seeking to prove a fact in a court These issues refer to the standard questions that (Jurkowski, 2017) can be applied to any policy proposal, such as: (a) Its duty of the affirmative side is to present is the measure necessary? (b) will the measure evidence to build up a claim. be beneficial? and (c) is the measure This burden is a responsibility to show that the practicable? In the case of the lotto proposition, claim encompassed to the resolution is the stock issues may appear like these: Is there a probably true, necessity to abolish the lotto? Is the abolition Only affirmative can satisfy the requirements beneficial to the people? And is it practicable to of the burden of proof which can make a abolish the lotto? prima facie case. TYPES OF ISSUES Which in this case there is a sufficient strength The affirmative side will, understandably, try to to win unless related to stronger evidence. show that the proposed change is necessary, PRIMA FACIE beneficial, and practicable, while the opposition True, valid or sufficient at first impressions (Merriam- will try to show that it is not. The common question Webster) of practicability is “can it be done now?” and “are RESOLUTION we in a position to carry out the measure?” It is the solemn judgment or decision of the court. PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER PARTITION 2. Logical sufficiency and relevancy According to definition, it refers to “the statement - The second test, this determines whether of the main points to be taken up in the course of the evidence is likely to be believed by the discussion.” In certain cases, the partition points men in general and whether it is pertinent are the same as the issues provided and are or applicable to the purpose for which it is considered crucial in a debate. As certain point in presented. the partition do not correspond to the issues, TYPES OF EVIDENCE however, they are still significant but not USED IN GENERAL USED IN COURTS OF LAW necessarily a requirement. ARGUMENTATION In the proposition on lotto, the affirmative side Examples/ Instances Direct and Indirect may present the following issues including: (a) Statistics Evidence The abolition is necessary, (b) The abolition is Statements by Real and Personal Authorities Evidence beneficial to the people, (c) The abolition is Illustrations Documentary and practicable testimonial in the effort to establish these issues, he may Evidence say further that he proposes to prove that: (a) Original and lotto is inimical to the social, moral, and unoriginal Evidence spiritual wellbeing of the people, (b) lotto Primary and could be the easiest source of massive secondary revenues for politicians buying electoral evidence victory. (c) and the abolition will not entail Ordinary and expert Evidence considerable additional expense. Preappointed and casual Evidence LESSON 10 Positive and EVIDENCE Negative Evidence PROOF TYPES OF EVIDENCE USED IN GENERAL The most important element in debating ARGUMENTATION The means of securing belief Examples or instances: Effectiveness of proof can tell whether a Refer to certain facts or conclusions that may hold debate is good or bad true at same fact will hold true in other similar - Reasoning + Evidence = proof situations. Effect/ Result/ Conclusion produced by evidence With the use of examples and instances, it can help EVIDENCE change the audience’s decision and accept the Foundation of every argument argument. Basis upon which the entire proof structure is built To further understand: Facts that support reasoning Suppose that in a debate on a change from Used to prove one’s contention the presidential to the parliamentary form of Medium or means whereby facts are government, the debater is trying to convince established his audience that the parliamentary form of EVIDENCE IN COURTS OF LAW AND IN GENERAL the government eliminates the occurrence of ARGUMENTATION graft and corruption. Evidence in court of law is better treated, analyzed To support his argument, he must cite and studied that in general argumentation, simply examples such as: Great Britain, Canada, because the main concern of a court is the Japan, etc. administration of justice which demands the The use of the given examples can cause the ascertainment of the truth in order that the law audience to accept the debater’s conclusion on may be justly justified. which the parliamentary form of government eliminates the occurrence of graft and corruption. The two tests are applied whenever a piece of 3 RULES | IMPORTANT IN USING EXAMPLES OR evidence is used in a court of law: INSTANCES 1. Test or rule of legal admissibility: 1. Several examples leading to the same general - The first test, this determines whether the conclusion should be used. rules of the court permit introduction of the 2. As far as possible, use examples which are evidence in the trial; whether or not the already known to the listener. rules set fourth in the “law of evidence” 3. The examples should be typical have been satisfied. PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER STATISTICS 2. Give enough details to make the picture Consists of tabulated numerical figures developed complete. from a collection of a great number of examples 3. Use some elements in the illustration that will presented as a group. make the listener remember it. CONCLUSION ON TYPES OF EVIDENCE USED IN Only includes figures which represents tabulations GENERAL ARGUMENTATION of examples or instances. The debater must bear in mind that except for examples, the types of evidence discussed are Often presented in percentages % only appropriate when the type of debate used is Oxford-Oregon. Example: MATTER – Consists of arguments and examples A debate on the abolition of lotto; a debater trying used by either side. to convince the audience that the demand for MANNER – Style in which matter is introduced abolition is overwhelming; 80% of the respondents METHOD – Refers to the effectiveness, are in favor of terminating the lotto operation organization and structure and presentation 4 RULES | IMPORTANT TO BE FOLLOWED IN USING of each individual speech. STATISTICS AS EVIDENCE TYPES OF EVIDENCE USED IN COURTS OF LAW 1. Avoid the use of too many sets of figures DIRECT AND INDIRECT EVIDENCE 2. Figures usually should be presented in round 1. DIRECT EVIDENCE – The one that tends to show order. the existence of a fact in question without 3. Be conservative in interpreting statistics; avoid the necessity of any inference, presumption, the tendency to exaggerate or intervention of the proof of any other fact. 4. Use comparisons with things known to and 2. INDIRECT EVIDENCE – The one tends to show understood by your listeners the existence of a fact in question by STATEMENTS BY AUTHORITIES proving another fact or other facts from which Type of evidence which consists of statements by the facts in question may be inferred. prominent authorities related to the point at issue. REAL AND PERSONAL EVIDENCE It is very effective when used in connection with 1. REAL EVIDENCE other forms of evidence. Furnished by objects placed on view or STATEMENTS BY AUTHORITIES 2 GENERAL CLASSES under inspection. 1. Statement as to facts – made usually by It speaks for itself and is “the most trustworthy government departments, authoritative type of evidence.” research organizations, or recognized In the courtroom, it may consist of shoes, publications (e.g. encyclopedias or year wounds, scars, and bullets, or weapons. books) examples: examples, statistics, 2. PERSONAL EVIDENCE illustrations. Furnished by persons 2. Used independently as separate form of May be in the form of oral or written discourse evidence – statements of opinions taken or by voluntary signs for communicating usually taken from statements of individual thought. authorities, and sometimes from reports of DOCUMNETARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE government investigating committees or of 1. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE private research organizations. Supplied by written instruments, or derived ILLUSTRATIONS from symbols. An imaginative example showing how the idea Main sources are documents like public works or how would it work in place. records or private writings Example: contracts, certificates, pictures, minutes Illustration varies in different fields as long as it 2. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE supports the idea. Derived from oral statements given in courts by witnesses or the disposition by the one Giving a vivid picture of one man’s experience who has observed that to which he is testifying or one who, though he has not Depends for its effectiveness on the vividness and observed the facts, is nevertheless qualified reality of the picture it gives the listener. to give an opinion relative to such facts. 3 RULES | THAT WILL AID IN MAING THE ILLUSTRTION ORIGINAL AND UNORGINAL EVIDENCE CLEAR AND VIVID: 1. ORIGINAL EVIDENCE 1. To the greatest degree possible, the illustration Derived from the witness’ own knowledge, should make use of everyday experiences of therefore has a probative force of its own. the listener. PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER May also fall under direct, circumstantial, It is something prepared or preserved in testimonial, or personal evidence, anticipation of an assertion of defense of a depending upon its essential nature. right. 2. UNORIGINAL EVIDENCE 2. CASUAL EVIDENCE Hearsay, derivative or transmitted, or Is one that is created without any effort being secondhand evidence made to create it and is not From the witness’ personal knowledge but designed for possible future reference from the information given to him by another It is not created to enforce an obligation or person to protect a right. It is totally undesigned. To prove something seen or heard, the court POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE usually calls a witness, a person who 1. POSITIVE EVIDENCE actually seen or heard that thing; not Is one that is furnished by anything that can anyone who says that another person saw or actually attest to the occurrence of a fact in heard it dispute. Most common exception: Ante-mortem 2. NEGATIVE EVIDENCE declaration, pedigree cases Is the absence of evidence that might PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE reasonably be expected to be found were 1. PRIMARY EVIDENCE (BEST EVIDENCE) the issue in question true. Most reliable proof of its existence and its LESSON 11 contents. Example: a copy of deed is not the REASONING best evidence; the deed itself is better REASONING AND ARGUMENT 2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE Giving reasons in favor of doing this or that One that falls short of the standard of primary It is the essential ingredient in problem solving. evidence, since by its nature suggests that The process of drawing conclusions from there is better evidence of the matter in evidence is called reasoning or argument. question. After evidence, reasoning is the other element Inferior compared to primary evidence of proof Example: a photocopy or a xeroxed copy of REASONING a deed It is the process of inferring conclusions from 3. BEST EVIDENCE RULE – Secondary evidence is premises, and the premises may be in the form essentially weak and is generally inadmissible of any of the various types of evidence. in courts of law. Thus, advocates use the premises they have 4. MOST COMMON EXPECTATIONS previously established or asserted, and by A. The best evidence is in the hands of the process of reasoning seek to establish adversary who refuses to produce it something new – a conclusion they wish their despite a notice to do so. audience to accept. B. if the judge is satisfied that the best If the audience perceives the premises as well evidence has been lost, stolen, or grounded and the reasoning is rhetorically destroyed. sound, it will be likely to ACCEPT the ORDINARY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE advocates’ conclusion. 1. ORDINARY EVIDENCE COGENT REASONING Provided by persons without special Reasoning or argument is either cogent training, knowledge, or experience in the (good) or fallacious (bad) matter under consideration To reason cogently, three criteria must be Limited to what they see, smell, hear, taste, satisfied: or touch 1. One must start with justified or warranted 2. EXPERT EVIDENCE premises Witness whose special skill is required in the 2. He must include all available relevant interpretation of the fact in dispute information Courts insist the special competence of 3. His reasoning must be correct or valid. experts should be established before they PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS are allowed to offer opinion evidence PREMISE – A statement in an argument that PREAPPOINTED AND CASUAL EVIDENCE provides reason or supports the conclusion 1. PREAPPOINTED OR PREARRANGED EVIDENCE CONCLUSION – A statement in an argument Is one that is created for the specific that indicates what the arguer is trying to purpose of recording certain information convince the reader/listener. for possible future reference Example: Premise 1: All humans are mortal PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER Premise 2: Socrates is a human 3. Hypothetical Syllogism Conclusion: Socrates is mortal 4. Modus Pones This argument is based on Deductive 5. Modus Tollens Reasoning CATEGORIAL SYLLOGISM One has come to the conclusion that All the proposition are listed by categories, Socrates is mortal. Reasons from a general declaring something absolutely, admitting no premise. (All humans are mortal) to minor condition, or limitation premise (Socrates is a human) to the The Major Premise is in an unqualified conclusion (Socrates is mortal) Whenever proposition, characterized by quantifiers: all, one reason from a general rule to a specific every, each, or any. case, he is reasoning deductively. a. Major Premise: All vices are bad DEDUCTIVE REASONING b. Minor Premise: Gambling is a vice Expressed in a three-step pattern called a c. Conclusion: Therefore, gambling is bad. syllogism The following tests may be applied to the The reasoning moves from a major premise to categorial syllogisms: a minor premise to a conclusion. The formally 1. The categorical syllogism must have three stated syllogism of the example above would terms represented by letters A (Middle appear this way: Term), B (Middle Term), C (Minor Term) Major Premise: All humans are mortal Major Premise: All A’s are B’s Minor Premise: Socrates is a human Minor Premise: C is an A Conclusion: Socrates is mortal Conclusion: Therefore, C is B. PREMISES AND CONCLUSION (cont’d) 2. Every term must be used only twice in the Another example for reasoning: categorical syllogism, no more no less. Gambling is the cause of my parent’s 3. A term must only be used once in any breakup. Therefore, gambling is bad. premise. This premise and conclusion are an example 4. The middle term must be used in at least of Inductive Reasoning. one premise in a universal sense. Moving from particular or specific items of 5. A term may be distributed in the conclusion information (evidence) to a only if it has been distributed in the logical conclusion (generalization.) major or minor premise When using inductive reasoning, examine 6. At least one of the premises must be specific instances and the result of affirmative. observations comes to a generalization. 7. If one premise is negative, the conclusion Here is the Argument in a textbook form: will automatically be negative as well. Major Premise: Gambling is the cause of my Example: parent’s breakup. a. Major Premise: All vices are not Minor Premise: It has been the cause of the moral breakup of my best friend’s parent’s b. Minor Premise: Gambling is a vice Conclusion: Therefore, it is bad. c. Conclusion: Therefore, gambling is However, Inductive Reasoning: not moral Allows for relative conclusions concerning it DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM probability and reliability. Disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism in which the Also often used as “Probability Argument” major premise contains mutually exclusive In conclusion, inductive reasoning has the alternatives. extra element of doubt because they make The separation of alternatives is usually claims not already made by their parents. indicated by the conjunctions: either, or, DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY neither, but, although. Different deductive arguments may have the The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is: same form or structure but the most commonly 1. A OR B used form of reasonings is SYLLOGISM. 2. NOT A. SYLLOGISM – Is a deductive argument 3. THEREFORE, B. consisting of exactly two premises and one For example: conclusion: 1. Major premise: Gambling is either a hobby The Major Premise, The Minor Premise, and or a vice The Conclusion. 2. Minor premise: Gambling is not a hobby. 5 COMMON CLASSES OF SYLLOGISM 3. Conclusion: Therefore, gambling is a vice. 1. Categorial Syllogism 2. Disjunctive Syllogism PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER 3 TESTS | THE FOLLOWING TESTS MAY BE APPLIED TO antecedent statement is denied by the THE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM conclusion. 1. The major premise must include all the Its full Latin name is modus tollento tollens possible alternatives. – When the possibilities which means “the mode of denying by used in the predicate of the disjunctive major denying” premise are not exhaustive, a fallacy arise. The basic form of the modus tollens is: 2. The alternatives presented must be mutually 1. IF A THEN B exclusive. – A fallacy arises when the use of 2. NOT B one of the alternatives does not preclude the 3. THEREFORE A use of other. Example: 3. The minor premise must affirm or contradict 1. Major premise: If Socrates is a man one of the alternatives given in the major (antecedent) premise. – If the minor premise neither affirms Then Socrates is mortal (Consequent) or contradicts one of the alternatives in the 2. Minor premise: Socrates is not mortal major premise, no valid conclusion is possible 3. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is not man. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM COMMON INVALID ARGUMENT FORMS Hypothetical (or conditional) syllogism is a AFFRIMING THE CONSEQUENT – The fallacy of syllogism in which the major premise deals with affirming the consequent arises when the uncertain or hypothetical events that may or minor premise affirms the consequent. may not exist or happen. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT – The fallacy of It is usually indicated by the words if, assuming, denying the antecedent occurs if the minor supposing or similar concepts either expressly premise denies the antecedent of the major stated or clearly implied. premise. The basic form of the hypothetical syllogism is: INDUCTIVE VALIDITY 1. IF A THEN B Principle of reasoning that moves from 2. IF B THEN C evidence about some members of a class to 3. THEREFORE, IF A THEN C. a conclusion about all members of that class. For example: Specific to general 1. if lotto is abolished, then the forms of Suggests the truth about a statement but does gambling will decrease. not directly prove the statement. 2. If the forms of gambling will decrease, then FOUR BASIC KINDS OF INDUCTION vices will be minimized. 1. Reasoning by Generalization 3. Therefore, if lotto is abolished, then vices 2. Reasoning by Analogy will be minimized 3. Reasoning from cause and effect MODUS PONES 4. Reasoning from Sign The modus pones is a syllogism in which the REASONING BY GENERALIZATION antecedent statement of the major premise is Reasoning by enumeration or reasoning from affirmed by the minor premise and the random instances consequent statement is affirmed by the Examines specific details or examples and conclusion. coming to a general conclusion. The full Latin name is modus ponendo pones All As observed so far are Bs to the conclusion which means “the mode of affirming by that all As whatsoever are Bs. affirming” 1. Greater sample size yields greater The basic form of modus pones is: possibility 1. IF A THEN B 2. More representative samples yield higher 2. A probabilities 3. THEREFORE, B. 3. One definite counterexample refutes a Example: theory 1. Major premise: If Socrates is a man The following questions may serve as tests for (antecedent) the use of reasoning by example: Then Socrates is mortal. (consequent) 1. Is the example relevant? 2. Minor premise: Socrates is a man 2. Are there a reasonable number of (antecedent affirmed) examples? 3. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. 3. Do the examples cover a critical period of MODUS TOLLENS time? The modus tollens is a syllogism in which the 4. Are the example typical? consequent statement of the major premise is 5. Are negative examples critical denied by the minor premise and the PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER REASONING BY ANALOGY TWO CLASSIFICATIONS OF SIGNS: Involves making a comparison between two 1. INFALLIBLE SIGN – Certain indication of the similar cases and inferring that what is true in existence of a given state or condition one case is true in the other 2. FALLIBLE SIGN – Probability of likelihood rather Factors in one’s analogy are either a cause or than certainty. sign of conclusion presented Tests of Sign Reasoning: LITERAL ANALOGY VS. FIGURATIVE ANALOGY 1. Is the alleged substance relevant to the LITERAL ANALOGY – Cases compared are in attribute described? the same classification, (EX: tom and brad) 2. Is the relationship inherent? FIGURATIVE ANALOGY – Cases compared are 3. Is there a counter factor that disrupts the in different classification (EX: When a dirty relationship? politician is compared to a crocodile) 4. Is the sign reasoning cumulative? Tests by analogy LESSON 12 1. Are there significant points of similarity? FALLACIES 2. Are the points of similarity critical to FALLACY comparison? Fallacious reasoning is reasoning that fails to satisfy 3. Are the points of difference noncritical? one or more of these three criteria. It can be the 4. Is the reasoning cumulative? result of faulty induction or deduction, or the 5. Are only literal analogies used as logical acceptance of misleading argumentation. proof? Logically, all fallacies fall naturally into one of the REASONING BY CAUSE AND EFFECT three broad categories: Causal reasoning is based on the principle 1. Questionable premise that every cause has an effect. This usually 2. Suppressed premise involves generalization. 3. Invalid inference Casual reasoning may be: TYPES OF FALLACIES 1. Cause to effect 1. Appeal to authority 2. Effect to cause 2. Appeal to ignorance Tests of reasoning: 3. Ad hominem argument 1. Is the alleged cause relevant to the effect 4. Ad populum argument described? 5. Begging the question 2. Is this the sole or distinguishing factor? 6. Arguing in a circle 3. Is there reasonable probability that no 7. Pseudo-question or complex question undesirable effect may result from this 8. Invalid or irrelevant reason particular cause? 9. Questionable premise 4. Is there a counter acting cause? 10.Suppressed evidence 5. Is the cause capable of producing the 11.Questionable cause effect? 12.Questionable statistics 6. Is the cause necessary and sufficient? 13.Questionable classification 7. How does a new cause affect the system? 14.False dilemma REASONING BY SIGN 15.Slippery Slope Argument revolves around how two or more 16.Straw man objects are so related that the presence or 17.Tokenism absence of one may be taken as an 18.Equivocation indication of the presence or absence of the 19.Unwarranted or Hasty Generalization other. 20.False or questionable analogy During sign reasoning one may reason either 21.Provincialism from the attribute to the substance or from the 22.Inconsistency substance to the attribute. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY One variable may be taken as a sign of Appeal to authority (argumentum ad another, the relationship between the verecundiam) is a fallacy that insists that a variables is reciprocal claim is true simply because a valid authority says Relationship between the variables is it without any other evidence being given. nonreciprocal when one variable may be APPEAL TO IGNORANCE taken as a sign of the other, but the Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad second variable is not a reliable sign of ignorantiam) is a type of fallacy wherein a the first person makes an assumption that the lack of evidence of an opponent is considered as the evidence. PCOMM 1st SEM | FINALS REVIEWER AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT SLIPPERY SLOPE Ad hominem fallacy means “against the man,” A slippery slope is an argument that suggests that and this type of fallacy is sometimes called a certain initial action could lead to a chain of name calling or the personal attack fallacy events with a relatively extreme result, or that if we AD POPULUM ARGUMENT treat one case a certain way then we will have to Ad Populum Argument or “Argumentum ad treat more extreme cases the same way too. populum” (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a STRAWMAN fallacious argument that concludes that a This fallacy refers to attacking a position similar to proposition must be true because many or most but significantly different from an opponent’s people believe it, often concisely encapsulated position. as: "If many believe so, it is so” TOKENISM BEGGING THE QUESTION It is a fallacy wherein a token gesture is accepted Any form of argument where the conclusion is as a substitute for real action. assumed in one of the premises. EQUIVOCATION ARGUING IN CIRCLE The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key Circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an term or phrase in an argument is used in an argument by beginning with an assumption that ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion what you are trying to prove is already true. The of the argument and then another meaning in conclusion is assumed as a premise either another portion of the argument. immediately in the argument or else assumed UNWARRANTED OR HASTY GENERALIZATION mediately as a premise in a series of arguments. Generalization is fallacious when it is based on PSEUDO-QUESTION OR COMPLEX QUESTION insufficient or unfair evidence or when it is not This fallacy arises when an advocate asks an warranted by the facts available; the use of unanswerable, "loaded", or ambiguous question; relevant but insufficient evidence to reach a or a question based on a false assumption; or so conclusion. many questions that an opponent cannot possibly FALSE OR QUESTIONABLE ANALOGY answer them adequately within the available time. Cases seen relevantly different. INVALID INFERENCE OR IRRELEVANT REASON PROVINCIALISM This fallacy occurs when the advocate draws a Sees things exclusively through the eyes of one's conclusion that does not follow from the premises own group, organization, nation, etc. or evidence on which it is based or when he is INCONSISTENCY trying to prove something using evidence that may This is using or accepting two contradicting claims appear to be relevant but really isn’t. and can be presented by (1) one person at a time; QUESTIONABLE PREMISE (2) one person at different times; (3) different This arises when one accepts a premise when person from one constitution. It can also be he has no good reason to accept it (and the committed by someone who say one thing but argument in question doesn't provide any). does another. SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE WRAPPING IT UP This refers to the omission from an argument One should not forget that fallacy categories of known relevant evidence or failure to look can sometimes overlap, and that a given for evidence that is available. argument may contain more than one QUESTIONABLE CAUSE fallacy. This refers to labelling something as the When giving fallacy label/s to a particular cause of something on the basis of insufficient argument, one's explanations are more evidence, or contrary to available evidence. important than the fallacy label/s they put on QUESTIONABLE STATISTICS an argument. This refers to using or accepting statistics It is advised that the use of fallacy labels is only that are questionable without further proof or appropriate when the debate type is Oxford- support. Oregon. QUESTIONABLE CLASSIFICATION This involves placing items in the same classification class although they aren't relevantly similar. FALSE DILEMMA When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exist between two extremes.