Define and explain each item on the outline. I look for specific answers that reflect the readings.

Chapter I: The Power of Critical Thinking.

Explain/define the following:

1. Statements and claims

• Claim; statement
• Proposition

1. Disagreements: Explain/Define the following (from lectures and text).
   • Factual Disagreement

• Interpretive Disagreement
• Explain/Define the following (from lectures and text).
• Necessary truth
• Contingent truth
• Contradictions
• In arguments: Reasons (premises); Conclusion
• Define an argument in logic and critical thinking
• List some conclusion and premise indicator words:
• Premise
• Conclusion
• How do premises and conclusions relate to each other by way of the term inference? Read below:

1. READ: How to Detect an Argument: Please read information in note

Note: In most arguments there is a claim that the statements present evidence or reasons for the conclusion. Though it is not necessary that the premises present true reasons, they must nevertheless claim to do so. This occurs when it is claimed that the passage contains a certain kind of reasoning process. In detecting arguments, look for an explicit argument or the implicit claim to an argument (in the latter no indicators may be present, and the reader must examine the inferential link between statements).

• Define at least two conditions that must be fulfilled for a passage to be an argument by way of the above NOTE.

List and Explain these Non-argumentative passages: chapters 1 & 9

• Explanations: Explanadum, and Explanans
• List at least two types of explanations and describe them (chapter 9, 9.1 info.):
• Conditional Statements; list the parts by name.

 

The Power of Critical Thinking

• Claims or Statements

A statement that states something which could be true or false. There are two types of claims—descriptive claims and normative claim.

• Proposition

A statement stated to mention a point whose authenticity is doubtful. In logic, we usually consider claims, statements and propositions as identical.

• Factual Disagreement

Factual disagreement is when two or more individuals disagree on a statement where each individual think their estimation is more precise than the other one—which causes a factual dispute or disagreement.

Eg. Sam states, “The First World War ended in 1943”, while Mark disagrees with his statement, “No it ended in 1945.”

• Interpretive Disagreement

The disagreement caused when a group of people agree on the evidence i.e. data or facts but they disagree on the existence of the facts or data.

Eg: I know she called me stupid. However, that doesn’t make me one.         

• Necessary Truth

A logical statement that is necessary to be true in any sense or way. In other words, statements that can never be false or data which is acknowledged in the universe.

Eg. All Wednesdays are days. All Birds have colour. Sunsets in West.

• Contingent Truth

A true proposition that could have been false or a false proposition that could have been true.

Eg: There are aliens in Area 51.

• Contradiction

Contradiction states that there is no statement that can ever be both true and false at the same time. In other words, a statement can be either true or false—never both.

Eg. It is snowing—It could be snowing in Washington but it cannot be snowing in India.

• Premises and Conclusion in an argument

Premises in an argument is the information that is intended to provide factual support to the main point of argument or conclusion.

Conclusion in an argument is the claim that must follow from the evidence or premises.

Eg. Mark lives in Washington. (Premises)

      Therefore, Mark lives in the USA. (Conclusion)

• Argument in Logic

An argument in logic is a set of declaration which comprise of two slices namely premises or reason and conclusion—wherein premise gives support for the acceptance of the conclusion.

• Argument in Critical Thinking

A group of statements in which the conclusion is said to follow from the premises. Premises holds the evidence that leads to a conclusion. Thus, clubbing conclusion and premises makes an argument that is further recognized and evaluated in critical thinking.

• List some word indicators of
  1. 1. Premises: Since, Because, Assuming that, As indicated by, It follows from
     2. Conclusion: Therefore, It follows that, It proves that, It implies that, So, Thus.
• Define at least two conditions that must be fulfilled for a passage to be an argument by way of the Note

First:

1. 1. 1. P₁: All metals expand when heated.
      2. P₂: Iron at room temperature when heated at 373 Kelvin.
      3. P₃: Iron is a metal.
      4. C₁: Iron will expand.

Second:

• 1. 1. P₁: Any rigid body that goes up, must come down.
     2. P₂: A ball is thrown to some altitude upwards.
     3. P₃: A ball is a round and rigid body.
     4. C₁: The ball will come down.
• Explanandum, and Explanans

A sentence that describes what to be explained is Explanandum. Whereas, a sentence that does the explaining is Explanas. Explanandum is the conclusion while explanans is the premises.

Eg. The dinosaurs went extinct. (Explanandum)

       The earth was struck by a large asteroid. (Explanans)

• Explanation

An explanation is where you cite the reason for a phenomenon. Many explanations work by citing a cause.

For eg. If two balls are linear, striking one ball causes the motion of another ball in the linear lane of the first one.

• Deductive-Nomological Model

The Deductive-Nomological Model gives the deductive explanation of Why for a statement. This model has an explanandum and an explanan. Explanandum asks for the reason for the occurrence or existence of some case. For example, Why does he have cancer? Because he smokes a lot of cigarettes weekly. The model states, “If X equals H and X also equals W then H equals W.” For example, if H is a human and W is a whale then X is Mammal.

• The Casual-Mechanical model:

The Casual-Mechanical model has an explanation of X that shows how X fits into a causal nexus. Statistical relevance states that the explanans should surge the probability of the explanandum. For eg, B is statistically relevant to C when P(CIA & B) is higher than P(CIA). P(you have paresis | you are human & you have syphilis) is greater than P(you have paresis | you are human). On the other hand, P(pregnancy | male & birth control) = P(pregnancy | male) = 0. Being a male "screens off" taking birth control from failing to get pregnant. A screen off B from C when P(CIA & B) = P(CIA).

• Conditional Statements

In conditional statements, the statement has two parts viz. antecedent and consequent. These two decide the authenticity of the statement and usually, a truth table is used to justify the output of the given statement.

For example, The Cat is sitting on the mat, and the cat is fat.

Conditional statements also require Venn diagrams sometimes. Conditional statements have a hypothesis i.e. if followed by the conclusion then. For example, If today is Sunday, then yesterday was Saturday. They can be interchanged yet the meaning will stay the same. p→q can be also written as q→p or If yesterday was Saturday then today is Sunday.