✅ Which of the following characterises a *valid* argument?
In philosophy, validity is about the structure (syntax) of an argument, not whether the premises/conclusion are actually true. This means an argument can be valid even if its premises and conclusion are false. For example: (P1) If the moon is made of green cheese, frogs are mammals. (P2) The moon is made of green cheese. (C) Therefore, frogs are mammals. This argument is valid, but not sound. A sound argument is one that is valid + the premises/conclusion are also true.
Which fallacy is demonstrated here?
1️⃣ All bats can fly. 2️⃣ The cricket bat is a bat. 3️⃣ Therefore, the cricket bat can fly.
The equivocation fallacy occurs when the meaning of a word changes during an argument. In (P1) here, 'bat' means the flying animal. But in (P2), 'bat' means the stick you hit a ball with. So even though the argument looks valid in form, it’s invalid because the key term changes meaning halfway through.
Which conclusion logically follows from premises 1 and 2?
1️⃣ If A, then B. 2️⃣ A. 3️⃣ Therefore, ....
This argument format (A→B, A, ∴B) is known as modus ponens and is a valid form of argument. A practical example might be (P1) If it rains, the ground is wet, (P2) It rains. (C) Therefore, the ground is wet.
💭 An argument that appeals to the best or most likely explanation is also known as...
Abductive arguments infer the most plausible explanation for an observation based on the available evidence. For example, you wake up in the morning and notice that the ground outside is wet. One possible explanation is that it rained overnight. Although other explanations are possible (such as someone washing the pavement or aliens pouring water on it), rain may be considered the most plausible explanation. Therefore, you (abductively) infer that it probably rained during the night.
Which fallacy is demonstrated here?
🅰️: "I think we should regulate AI development." 🅱️: "So you want to ban all new technology then?"
The straw man fallacy is when you distort someone's position to a much weaker version of what they actually believe and then attack that. Just because somebody wants to regulate AI development, that doesn't mean they want to ban all technology - that’s an exaggerated caricature (i.e. a straw man) of their actual view.
✅ Which of the following arguments is valid?
This argument format (A→B, ¬B, ∴¬A) is known as modus tollens and is a valid form of argument. A practical example might be (P1) If it rained, the ground would be wet, (P2) The ground isn't wet, (C) Therefore, it didn't rain.
key: (→ = if-then) (¬ = not) (∴ = therefore)
💭 Which type of argument compares two things and infers that what is true of one is likely true of the other?
An analogical argument (AKA an argument from analogy) reasons that because two things share certain similarities, they are likely to share another characteristic as well. For example, Person A and Person B like the same art, music, books, and films - so they are similar in many ways. Person A likes football. So, by analogy, it's reasonable to expect that Person B likes football too.
Which fallacy is demonstrated here?
🙅 "Everyone says Person X is bad, therefore Person X must be bad."
The ad populum fallacy (also known as bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the majority, and a bunch of other names) occurs when someone concludes that a claim is true because many people believe it. It's a fallacy because it's possible for something to be false even if everyone believes it and true even if it's an unpopular opinion.
💭 An argument where the truth of the conclusion is logically guaranteed by the truth of the premises is known as...
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the premises are true, it's impossible for the conclusion to be false. Deductive reasoning aims for certainty rather than probability. This differs from inductive, abductive, or analogical arguments, which only make the conclusion likely if the premises are true.
⭕ An argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion in its premises commits which logical fallacy?
Begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the conclusion it is trying to prove, instead of providing independent support for it. The reasoning is circular because the claim is effectively used as evidence for itself. For example, saying "this policy is the best because it is superior to all others” simply restates the conclusion rather than proving it.
❌ Which of the following arguments is invalid?
This argument format (A→B, ¬A, ∴¬B) is known as denying the antecedent and is an invalid form of argument. A practical example might be (P1) If I study hard, then I will pass the exam, (P2) I did not study hard, (C) Therefore, I will fail the exam. This example shows the argument is invalid because even though you didn't study, it's still possible to pass the exam - e.g. you might get lucky or have natural intelligence.
key: (→ = if-then) (¬ = not) (∴ = therefore)
Which fallacy is demonstrated here?
🦺 "Either you support this policy, or you don’t care about people’s safety."
This is a false dilemma (or false dichotomy) because it presents only two options when in reality there are many possible options other than these two.
✅ Which of the following characterises a *sound* argument?
A sound argument is both (1) logically valid and (2) built on premises that are actually true. Logical validity is to do with the *structure* of the argument - it says *if* the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. But a sound argument is not only valid, but the premises *are indeed true*. And so, a sound argument means the conclusion must also be true as well.
