- Regular office hours Wednesday 11/16
- Practice test here
- Review session Thursday 11/17, 6-8 pm in Shatzel Hall 317 (Liz and John's students welcome to attend)
- Please come prepared with questions!
- Exam #2 Friday 11/18
Today: Exam #2 Review
Topics covered since Exam #1
- Informal fallacies
- Ad hominem (& reverse ad hominem)
- Circumstantial ad hominem (& reverse)
- Genetic fallacy (& reverse)
- Tu quoque
- Poisoning the well
- Naturalistic fallacy types 1 & 2
- Argument from ancient authority
- Ad populum (bandwagon fallacy)
- Appeal to emotions
- Ad baculum (appeal to force)
- Appeal to unqualified authority
- Obstacles to good reasoning
- Vagueness
- Semantic Ambiguity
- Syntactic Ambiguity
- Group Ambiguity
- Fallacy of Equivocation
- Fallacy of Composition
- Fallacy of Division
- Obstacles to good reasoning, continued
- Weasel Words
- Euphemism/dysphemism
- Misleading Comparisons
- Omitted/ambiguous comparison class
- Apples-to-oranges
- Puffery
- Generalizations
- Structure of arguments to general conclusions
- Target and sample populations
- Sample size and representativeness
- Hasty generalizations
- Anecdotal evidence
- Biased samples
- Operationalizing terms
- Margin of error
- Statistical syllogisms
- Structure of a statistical syllogism (generalization inverted)
- Considerations:
- How common is the trait in the target population?
- Homogeneity of target population?
- Relevant sub-groups?
- Manipulating your audience with numbers: Averages/percentages vs. absolute numbers
- Polling
- Structure of a polling argument (see generalizations)
- Selection bias
- Self-selection
- Measurement errors
- Common sources of measurement error:
- Medium
- Vagueness
- Timing
- Place
- Second-hand reporting
- People are dumb but don't want to look it
- Phrasing
- Self-selection
- Causal reasoning
- Mill's Methods:
- Agreement
- Difference
- Joint Method of Agreement and Difference
- Method of Concomitant Variation
- Dose-response relationship
- Correlation vs. causation
- General structure of a causal argument
- Common errors in causal reasoning
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc
- Misidentifying relevant causal factors
- Mishandling multiple factors
- Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
- Wrong direction of causation
- No control group
- (Related: biases, conspiracy theories)
- Arguments from ignorance
- Structure
- Evaluating premises
- Fallacious arguments from ignorance
- Legitimate arguments from ignorance
- Argument by elimination
- Arguments from personal incredulity
- Structure
- Evaluating premises
- Anomaly hunting [week of 11/14?]
I know. That's a long list.
But don't despair!
Use the practice test as your guide as to what you should focus on
*Make sure to do the practice test!
Other pieces of advice:
-Obviously, review the lecture notes & this blog. But don't spend all your time reading!
-Try to do at least couple of the questions from each homework set without your notes, then check your answers. This will help you isolate your strengths and weaknesses.
-Check your old, completed homework assignments against the answer keys posted on Canvas. Make a note of answers that differ from yours especially if you don't understand why the answers differ. Make sure to ask about these questions during class, office hours, or the review session.
-Same goes for the quizzes we've taken since the last exam.
-Make a note of questions you don't understand from the practice test, and bring those questions to class, office hours, or the review session.
-Ask your peers for help. Form study groups. "Grade" each other's homework.
-Finally...
Don't panic
Friday 11/11:
I recommend that you start studying for Exam #2 now.
In the course of your review...
Please give some thought to what you'd like to review in our discussion on Wednesday, 11/16. Then, leave your suggestions in a comment below.
Make sure to include your section time (9:30 or 11:30) in your comment.
I will update this post prior to our 11/16 discussion class.
Update 11/15 p.m.:
I haven't received any requests in the comments regarding what you'd like to cover tomorrow. Feel free to leave comments later tonight. In the absence of student feedback, we will cover:
-Questions about the practice exam
-Lingering questions about the homework
-Questions regarding the "identify the fallacy" examples Ami posted earlier this week
-A selection of questions from this 15 page set of practice questions I've created for you
In the absence of student feedback, I will focus mainly on generalizations, statistical syllogisms, polling, and causation.
I also want to review the answers to two questions from Quiz #5 that gave people trouble:
4. Most philosophers like cats. Liz and John are philosophers. Therefore, Liz and John probably like cats.
Name the argument structure:
a) Generalization
b) Modus ponens
c) General causal claim
d) Bob
e) Statistical syllogism
The above argument employs which of Mill's methods to reach its conclusion?
a) Method of agreement
b) Joint Method of Agreement and Difference
c) Method of Concomitant Variation
d) Method of Difference
e) Method Man
Happy studying :)
No comments:
Post a Comment