Study Guide for Logic Test General information This exam is worth 10% of your final grade. This exam is mainly on the Conway and Munson book. There
will be a separate exam, also worth 10%, on the O’Conner book. Students in on-campus sections take this test in class.
Online students take the test in Angel.
You get 90 minutes to complete the exam.
The 90 minutes must be continuous; e.g., you cannot work on the test for half an hour,
then log off, then restart later in the day.
Angel keeps track of your time and notifies me if you exceed the 90-minute time frame.
So be sure to log in to the exam only when you have 90 continuous minutes free. The test is open-book, open-note.
WATCH YOUR TIME. No points will be given for any
parts of the exam not completed. Concepts and terms you should know: Argument, premise, conclusion Premise indicators: since, because, for, as, in that,
given that, for the reason that, as indicated by, seeing that, inasmuch as,
owing to, etc. Conclusion indicators: therefore, so, hence, thus, implies
that, it follows that, we may conclude, consequently, as a result, etc. Valid deductive forms (see below): Modus ponens, modus tollens,
disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, constructive dilemma Reductio
ad absurdum Refutation Validity, soundness, strength of argument Connotation and denotation Types of reportive and stipulative definitions Be able to identify
instances of the following fallacies. Conway and Munson
explain all the items not explained or hyperlinked in the following list.
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack,
name-calling) Appeal to General Belief Appeal to Ignorance Appeal to Inappropriate Authority Appeal to Popular Attitudes and Emotions Fallacy of Asserting (aka Affirming) the Consequent Bandwagon Arguments Begging the Question Causal Fallacies Circular Reasoning Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent Diversionary Tactics (Red Herring, Irrelevant Thesis) Equivocation "Exception that Proves the Rule" Fallacy Failure to impose controls Fallacy of Accident (Appeal to a Saying) False Dilemma False, Misleading or Dubious Analogy Gambler’s Fallacy Hasty Generalization Impromptu Definition (aka "Definitional Dodge") Inference based on temporal succession – the post hoc
fallacy Inference from a correlation to a causal link – the
correlation fallacy Innuendo / Loaded Words Irrelevant Emotional Appeals (Appeals to Fear, Vanity,
Pity, Guilt, Patriotism, etc.) Loaded Question A sentence or paragraph passage exhibits the fallacy of
objectionable vagueness if you can't tell what it says.
Causes of objectionable vagueness include: ambiguity, equivocation, amphiboly,
compatibility with all states of affairs, etc. Look at the samples in the section at the end of
"How to Write Good".
Here is an objectionably vague paragraph:
"When looking at subjectivism in ethics, the focus
needs to be on basic interpretations of all moral
issues within an argument. Having validity or
being classified invalid should not have any bearing on
your assessment of a particular issue. After reading
through Chapter 3, “The Elements of Moral Philosophy”
by James Rachels, I became more aware of being
able to consciously break down an issue through
the different stages of the theory process."
HUH?
Persuasive Definition Poisoning the Well Pooh-Pooh Fallacy The fallacy often called Quibbling is also known as attack on a minor point.
It's often a diversionary tactic in argument.
For example:
Geometry Teacher: "Now we'll discuss circles." (Draws a circle on blackboard).
Student (quibbling): "That doesn't look like a circle to me. That's not a perfect circle. That's just one circle, and how
can you generalize from that? That's not a circle at all; it's really just particles of chalk." Etc.
Slippery Slope Special
Pleading
(special pleading is a kind of
inconsistency) Straw Man
If you would like to see more explanations of these fallacies, check out
the following online resources for informal fallacies:
Excellent general site on fallacies ("The Fallacy Files")
On fallacies of
relevance
(irrelevant
emotional appeals, ad hominem, appeal to questionable authority, appeal to
ignorance,
etc.)
On fallacies of
presumption
(accident, false cause, begging the question, complex question, etc.)
On fallacies of
ambiguity
(equivocation,
amphiboly, composition, division, accent)
Comprehensive list
of
fallacies --
Host site is decidedly atheist and uses religious arguments as examples of fallacies.
Practical logic for Christians --
Host
site for Christian home-schooling parents
Some Elementary VALID Deductive Forms (always logically correct)
Modus ponens(1): p and q are statements
Modus ponens(2): p and q are terms
Modus tollens(1): p and q are statements
Modus tollens(2): p and q are terms
Hypothetical Syllogism (1): p and q are statements
Hypothetical Syllogism(2): p and q are terms
Disjunctive Syllogism (1): p and q are statements
Disjunctive Syllogism (2): p and q are statements
Some INVALID Deductive Forms
Affirming the Consequent (1): p and q are statements
Affirming the Consequent (2): p and q are terms
Denying the Antecedent(1): p and q are statements
Denying the Antecedent(2): p and q are terms
|