Test
logics final
Este test tiene tipos de pregunta que se abren en el reproductor de siempre.
Preguntas del test (27)
1[blank_start]Standard form[blank_end] of an argument- a number of premises and a conclusion, uses only the most relative information as concise as possible
- AStandard form
2Standard form of an argument- a number of premises and a conclusion, uses only the most [blank_start]relative[blank_end] information as [blank_start]concise[blank_end] as possible
- Arelative
- Bconcise
3[blank_start]Deductive[blank_end] arguments- an argument that is either valid or invalid (valid when the argument is well-formed)
---tries to ensure the truth of the conclusion
---[blank_start]DEDUCTIVE[blank_end] ARGUMENT IS WELL-FORMED IFF IT IS VALID- ADeductive
- BDEDUCTIVE
4Deductive arguments- an argument that is either [blank_start]valid[blank_end] or [blank_start]invalid[blank_end] ([blank_start]valid[blank_end] when the argument is well-formed)
---tries to ensure the [blank_start]truth[blank_end] of the conclusion
---DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS [blank_start]WELL-FORMED[blank_end] IFF IT IS VALID- Avalid
- Binvalid
- Cvalid
- Dtruth
- EWELL-FORMED
5 [blank_start]validity[blank_end]- if and only if (iff) it is impossible for the premises of the argument to all be true and the conclusion of the argument to be false
- Avalidity
6 validity- if and only if (iff) it is [blank_start]impossible[blank_end] for the premises of the argument to all be [blank_start]true[blank_end] and the conclusion of the argument to be [blank_start]false[blank_end]
- Aimpossible
- Btrue
- Cfalse
7[blank_start]Inductive[blank_end] arguments- either strong or weak but not definite
-cogency (you don’t need to worry about defeat)
---argument is cogent iff it is not valid but the premises are good reasons for the conclusion
---tries to ensure likelihood of conclusion
---[blank_start]INDUCTIVE[blank_end] ARGUMENT ARE WELL-FORMED IFF IT IS COGENT- AInductive
- BINDUCTIVE
8Inductive arguments- either [blank_start]strong[blank_end] or [blank_start]weak[blank_end] but not [blank_start]definite[blank_end]
-[blank_start]cogency[blank_end] (you don’t need to worry about defeat)
---argument is [blank_start]cogent[blank_end] iff it is not valid but the premises are good reasons for the conclusion
---tries to ensure likelihood of conclusion
---INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT ARE WELL-FORMED IFF IT IS [blank_start]COGENT[blank_end]- Astrong
- Bweak
- Cdefinite
- Dcogency
- Ecogent
- FCOGENT
9Inductive arguments- either [blank_start]strong[blank_end] or [blank_start]weak[blank_end] but not [blank_start]definite[blank_end]
-cogency (you don’t need to worry about defeat)
---argument is cogent iff it is not [blank_start]valid[blank_end] but the premises are good [blank_start]reasons[blank_end] for the conclusion
---tries to ensure [blank_start]likelihood[blank_end] of conclusion
---INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT ARE [blank_start]WELL-FORMED[blank_end] IFF IT IS COGENT- Astrong
- Bweak
- Cdefinite
- Dvalid
- Ereasons
- Flikelihood
- GWELL-FORMED
10---Recognizing arguments from [blank_start]testimony[blank_end]- claim given by a source with the intention that the recipient will accept the claim
o Can be true or false
o Majority of beliefs are formed on basis of [blank_start]testimony[blank_end]
o Beliefs formed from the reliability and sincerity of the [blank_start]testimony[blank_end]- Atestimony
- Btestimony
- Ctestimony
11---Recognizing arguments from testimony- claim given by a [blank_start]source[blank_end] with the intention that the recipient will [blank_start]accept[blank_end] the claim
o Can be [blank_start]true[blank_end] or [blank_start]false[blank_end]
o [blank_start]Majority[blank_end] of beliefs are formed on basis of testimony
o Beliefs formed from the [blank_start]reliability[blank_end] and [blank_start]sincerity[blank_end] of the testimony- Asource
- Baccept
- Ctrue
- Dfalse
- EMajority
- Freliability
- Gsincerity
12--- Recognizing [blank_start]moral[blank_end] arguments
o [blank_start]Moral[blank_end] argument if and only if the conclusion of the argument is a [blank_start]moral[blank_end] proposition
o [blank_start]Moral[blank_end] property- any proposition that says something is [blank_start]moral[blank_end] or [blank_start]immoral[blank_end], right or wrong, or should or should not be done
o [blank_start]Moral[blank_end] propositions are a type of normative proposition and aim at being “universal” (i.e. everyone should or shouldn’t do something)
---Argument with false premises can have true conclusion, be valid, be cogent or have a false conclusion- Amoral
- BMoral
- Cmoral
- DMoral
- Emoral
- Fimmoral
- GMoral
13--- Recognizing moral arguments
o Moral [blank_start]argument[blank_end] if and only if the conclusion of the argument is a moral proposition
o Moral [blank_start]property[blank_end]- any proposition that says something is moral or immoral, right or wrong, or should or should not be done
o Moral [blank_start]propositions[blank_end] are a type of normative proposition and aim at being “universal” (i.e. everyone should or shouldn’t do something)
---Argument with false premises can have true conclusion, be valid, be cogent or have a false conclusion- Aargument
- Bproperty
- Cpropositions
14--- Recognizing moral arguments
o Moral argument if and only if the [blank_start]conclusion[blank_end] of the argument is a [blank_start]moral[blank_end] proposition
o Moral property- any [blank_start]proposition[blank_end] that says something is [blank_start]moral[blank_end] or [blank_start]immoral[blank_end], [blank_start]right[blank_end] or [blank_start]wrong[blank_end], or should or should not be done
o Moral propositions are a type of [blank_start]normative[blank_end] proposition and aim at being “[blank_start]universal[blank_end]” (i.e. [blank_start]everyone[blank_end] should or shouldn’t do something)
---Argument with [blank_start]false[blank_end] premises can have [blank_start]true[blank_end] conclusion, be [blank_start]valid[blank_end], be [blank_start]cogent[blank_end] or have a [blank_start]false[blank_end] conclusion- Aconclusion
- Bmoral
- Cproposition
- Dmoral
- Eimmoral
- Fright
- Gwrong
- Hnormative
- Iuniversal
- Jeveryone
- Kfalse
- Ltrue
- Mvalid
- Ncogent
- Ofalse
15[blank_start]Sentential patterns[blank_end]- variables represent complete thoughts of a sentence and uses truth tables to check for validity
- ASentential patterns
16Sentential patterns- variables represent complete thoughts of a sentence and uses [blank_start]truth tables[blank_end] to check for [blank_start]validity[blank_end]
- Atruth tables
- Bvalidity
17Argument [blank_start]Strength[blank_end]: Arguments can differ in [blank_start]strength[blank_end] relative to different individuals because of:
---How reasonable it is to believe a premise differs relative to different individuals
---(for inductive arguments only) whether the cogency of an argument is defeated depends on the background information of the individual considering the argument- AStrength
- Bstrength
18Argument Strength: Arguments can differ in strength [blank_start]relative[blank_end] to different [blank_start]individuals[blank_end] because of:
---How [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] it is to believe a premise differs [blank_start]relative[blank_end] to different [blank_start]individuals[blank_end]
---(for [blank_start]inductive[blank_end] arguments only) whether the [blank_start]cogency[blank_end] of an argument is defeated depends on the [blank_start]background[blank_end] information of the [blank_start]individual[blank_end] considering the argument- Arelative
- Bindividuals
- Creasonable
- Drelative
- Eindividuals
- Finductive
- Gcogency
- Hbackground
- Iindividual
19[blank_start]Defeat[blank_end]: When a person considers an argument, the argument is [blank_start]defeated[blank_end] for that person iff
---the argument is cogent
---the premises are reasonable for the person to believe
---there is claim/proposition that is reasonable for the person to believe which, if added to the premises of the argument, would create a new argument that is NOT cogent- ADefeat
- Bdefeated
20Defeat: When a person considers an argument, the argument is defeated for that person iff
---the argument is [blank_start]cogent[blank_end]
---the premises are [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] for the person to believe
---there is claim/proposition that is [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] for the person to believe which, if [blank_start]added[blank_end] to the premises of the argument, would create a [blank_start]new[blank_end] argument that is NOT [blank_start]cogent[blank_end]- Acogent
- Breasonable
- Creasonable
- Dadded
- Enew
- Fcogent
21Inductive Strength: An argument is [blank_start]inductively[blank_end] strong for a person iff
---the argument is cogent
---the premises are [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] for the person to believe
---the person’s [blank_start]information[blank_end] does not allow for the argument to be [blank_start]defeated[blank_end]- Ainductively
- Breasonable
- Cinformation
- Ddefeated
22---Argument [blank_start]Analysis[blank_end]:
Step 1: Argument [blank_start]Reconstruction[blank_end]
- Take the argument being presented in written or spoken “plain-english”
(i.e., prose), and outline in standard form
Step 2: Argument [blank_start]Evaluation[blank_end]
- Evaluate strength of argument
- Determine whether premises are true, or at least whether it is reasonable to believe premises and to what degree
- Determine whether argument is well-formed (in case of inductive arguments, determine how well-formed/cogent)- AAnalysis
- BEvaluation
- CReconstruction
23---Argument Analysis:
Step 1: Argument Reconstruction
- Take the argument being presented in written or spoken “[blank_start]plain[blank_end]-[blank_start]english[blank_end]”
(i.e., prose), and outline in [blank_start]standard[blank_end] form
Step 2: Argument Evaluation
- Evaluate [blank_start]strength[blank_end] of argument
- Determine whether premises are [blank_start]true[blank_end], or at least whether it is [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] to believe premises and to what [blank_start]degree[blank_end]
- Determine whether argument is [blank_start]well-formed[blank_end] (in case of inductive arguments, determine how [blank_start]well-formed/cogent[blank_end])- Aplain
- Benglish
- Cstandard
- Dstrength
- Etrue
- Freasonable
- Gdegree
- Hwell-formed
- Iwell-formed/cogent
24Argument [blank_start]Reconstruction[blank_end]:
-GOAL: Take the argument being presented in written or spoken “plain- english” (i.e., prose), and outline in standard form
-NO ONE METHOD OR FORMULA that ensures successful and efficient argument [blank_start]reconstruction[blank_end]. Some general guidelines and topics:
---Principle of Charity
---Identify Main Conclusion
---Identify Premises (explicit vs. implicit)
---Distinguish Arguments from Non-Arguments
---Distinguish Main Argument from Subarguments- AReconstruction
- Breconstruction
25Argument Reconstruction:
-GOAL: Take the argument being presented in written or spoken “plain- english” (i.e., prose), and outline in [blank_start]standard[blank_end] form
-NO ONE METHOD OR FORMULA that ensures [blank_start]successful[blank_end] and [blank_start]efficient[blank_end] argument reconstruction. Some general guidelines and topics:
---Principle of [blank_start]Charity[blank_end]
---Identify Main [blank_start]Conclusion[blank_end]
---Identify Premises ([blank_start]explicit[blank_end] vs. [blank_start]implicit[blank_end])
---Distinguish [blank_start]Arguments[blank_end] from Non-Arguments
---Distinguish Main Argument from [blank_start]Subarguments[blank_end]- Astandard
- Bsuccessful
- Cefficient
- DCharity
- EConclusion
- Fexplicit
- Gimplicit
- HArguments
- ISubarguments
26Principle of [blank_start]Charity[blank_end]: When reconstructing an argument, make the argument as strong as possible; formulate a reconstruction that is well-formed, has reasonable premises, and is undefeated (for inductive arguments).
---Principle of [blank_start]Charity[blank_end] is important because independent of any disagreement, arguments help us determine what to believe and for what reasons
---If following Principle of [blank_start]Charity[blank_end] leads us to reconstruct a stronger argument than someone intended, at least we avoid wasting our time by considering their weaker argument
---If we don’t follow Principle of [blank_start]Charity[blank_end], we may miss the opportunity to consider a stronger version of an argument that may lead us to take seriously a certain view view- ACharity
- BCharity
- CCharity
- DCharity
27Principle of Charity: When [blank_start]reconstructing[blank_end] an argument, make the argument as [blank_start]strong[blank_end] as possible; formulate a [blank_start]reconstruction[blank_end] that is [blank_start]well-formed[blank_end], has [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] premises, and is [blank_start]undefeated[blank_end] (for inductive arguments).
---Principle of Charity is important because independent of any [blank_start]disagreement[blank_end], arguments help us determine what to [blank_start]believe[blank_end] and for what [blank_start]reasons[blank_end]
---If following Principle of Charity leads us to reconstruct a [blank_start]stronger[blank_end] argument than someone intended, at least we avoid wasting our time by considering their [blank_start]weaker[blank_end] argument
---If we don’t follow Principle of Charity, we may miss the opportunity to consider a [blank_start]stronger[blank_end] version of an argument that may lead us to take seriously a certain view view- Areconstructing
- Bstrong
- Creconstruction
- Dreasonable
- Eundefeated
- Fdisagreement
- Greasons
- Hbelieve
- Istronger
- Jweaker
- Kstronger
- Lwell-formed
Información
- Descripción
- Test sobre logics final, creado por Tiffhanie Ramos el 01/05/2017.
- Autor
- Tiffhanie Ramos
- Idioma
- English
- Visitas
- 8
- Valoración
- Aún sin valoraciones Valora este test