Chapter 4

Chapter 4

1. 4 Types of questions

   • 1. Fact
     • answer is yes/no (did/didn't occur)
   • 2. Prediction
     • whether something is likely to occur or may occur under a certain set of circumstances
   • 3. Value
     • produces lively discussion bc it concerns attitudes, beliefs, and values about what's good/bad, right/wrong
       • ex. political questions
   • 4. Policy
     • help groups determine what course of action/policy change would enable them to solve a problem/reach a decsion
       • 3 Criteria for a good one
         • 1. should imply specific problem exists/must be solved
         • 2. limited in scope (no lack of focus)
         • 3. be controversial

2. 3 types of reasoning

   • inductive
     • method of arriving at a general conclusion through the use of specific examples, facts, stats, opinions (specific -> general)
   • deductive
     • process of drawing specific conclusion from a general statement/principle (general -> specific)
   • causal
     • process of relating 2+ events & concluding that one caused the other

3. Ways of supporting an argument

   • facts
     • cannot be a prediction bc it can't be verified
   • examples
     • most valuable when used to emphasize a fact (real/hypothetical)
   • opinions
     • fact-based of unbiased authorities are the most valuable resource
   • statistics
     • firm support for important points, easier than tons of facts/examples

4. Criteria for evaluating evidence

   • 1. accountability
   • 2. objectivity
   • 3. accuracy
   • 4. recency
   • 5. usability

5. Reasoning fallacies

   • 1. Causal
     • inappropriate assumption that one event is the cause of another when there is little evidence to connect them (supersition)
   • 2. Either/or
     • only 2 approaches/solutions to a problem (X or Y)
   • 3. Bandwagon
     • convinced that an idea is good simply bc everyone else thinks so
   • 4. Hasty generalization
     • conclusion on basis of too little/nonexistant evidence
   • 5. Attacking
     • irrelevant personal characteristics about someone rather than examining the idea/proposal
   • 6. Red Herring
     • undermining an idea by using irrelevant facts/arguments as distractions (ex. change subject)