Thank you all for taking the time to fill out mid-semester evals today!
I apologize for cutting into class time, but I got some very helpful feedback from you. In particular, I will take these suggestions (re: your most common concerns) to heart when I plan our remaining classes:
1. Provide a more condensed/simpler agenda to indicate the plan for discussion classes
2. (Related) highlight key points
My bad. I tend to over-prepare for class, and the amount of material on the blog can be a bit daunting.
I present much of the material on the blog for your reference, outside of class, and I need to do a better job of clarifying what I intend to cover in class.
To address this concern, I will:
a) Put a short, clear list of goals for each class at the start of every blog post
b) Followed immediately by a short, clear list of what I consider the crucial takeaway points.
Hopefully this will make it easier for everyone to prepare for the lesson and understand what the key points are.
3. Adjust the pace of the class
4. (Related) slow down!
At the outset of the class, I acknowledged my tendency to speed through material as my greatest weakness. I'm working on it, but I still go too fast sometimes.
Here's how I plan to address this concern:
a) I'll make a point of slowing down when I get to items on the "short list" (see 1&2)
b) I need your help to recognize when I'm going too fast. So, this sounds silly, but... I'm going to give you guys a code word.
When I start talking like I've had twelve cups of coffee, please raise your hand and say, "Liz, Xanax."
Seriously! I won't be offended, and I'll know to slow down.
There is, however, only so much I can do to adjust the pace of the class (downward).
This is a concern Ami and I both share: there is a lot of material to cover. As a result, sometimes lectures and discussion have to be fast-paced. Also as a result, I simply can't cover everything students have questions about during discussion.
So, I know this is the 1000th time you've heard this, but please please please come see me during office hours if I can't address your specific questions/concerns in class!
5. More time on homework in discussion
6. Related more comments on homework
I can do more about #5 than #6.
Regarding #5: Admittedly, for the past couple of weeks we haven't focused on the homework. Last week we had test review, and today I introduced new material. However, that trend won't continue. I will make an effort to focus on the homework in discussion for the next few weeks.
In the meantime, make sure to check out the homework answers (posted on Canvas). And, for the 1001st time, come see me with questions!
Regarding #6: We grade homework for completeness, not accuracy of content. Given the volume of homework assignments, I can't leave comments on everyone's work. However, I am happy to give you more extensive feedback in person.
I did try to leave you comments on your exams. If you find these too brief, or if you're confused by what I wrote, please let me know.
I think those are the biggest concerns you guys raised today. If I missed something you'd like to see addressed, please send me an email, or come see me.
Thank you again for your input!
** Oh, and REMINDER: Check out the previous (updated) blog post for answers to the "mystery fallacy" questions.
Thanks for your examples!
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Wednesday 10/12: Notes on Exam #1, more fallacies, & "grading" me
Plan for today:
1) Return exams & some comments regarding Exam #1*
*Not a review.
A few of your classmates had unavoidable conflicts on Friday and arranged in advance to take the exam after break.
Also, we have new material to cover.
So, I won't be discussing the answers to Exam #1 in class on Wednesday.
I am happy to discuss exams during office hours (see below).
2) Informal fallacies, continued
a) New fallacies
Group exercises: What's wrong with this argument?
b) Review (examples from last week)
Homework questions?
3) "Grading" me
Perhaps not the best timing, given that I've just returned your exams... But in the last 10-ish minutes of class I'll ask you to fill out informal mid-semester evaluations of me & this class.
Please take the time to fill out the form, which is anonymous, and to leave comments. Your input is very important to me. I will adjust the format of the class (within reason) in light of students' feedback.
1) Comments regarding Exam #1
-Many students did quite well, and the grade distribution was just about what we expected.
-If you are unhappy with your grade, I have a few suggestions:
1. Don't panic
-Logic is hard
-It is very easy to do very poorly on a logic exam.
This is because many of the answers are non-negotiable. I tried my best to give you partial credit - and generous partial credit - where possible. However, in many cases, given the nature of the subject matter, there wasn't much (or any) "wiggle room." An inference is either valid or invalid. Either you formalize the argument correctly, or you don't. These mistakes add up and, with no partial credit possible, grades can plummet.
-The semester ain't over til it's over
-This was just the first exam. You've got another exam, a final project, several quizzes, the usual slew of homework assignments, and extra credit opportunities to come...
-The first exam is usually the hardest
-In general, students tend to do slightly better on subsequent exams simply because they know what to expect.
2. Come see me
Come see me in 340 Shatzel Hall.
I'll be in 340 Shatzel Hall; come see me.
Come to office hours in 340 Shatzel Hall.
Make an appointment to meet me in 340 Shatzel Hall.
Did I mention that you ought to stop by 340 Shatzel Hall?
Come to my office in 340 Shatzel Hall.
There's candy.
(There is no candy. But you should still come see me.)
-Please note that if I wrote "Come see me" on your exam you are not in trouble, nor are you required to come see me. However, I strongly recommend that you see me during office hours to discuss your exam.
In general: I am happy to discuss any and all questions/concerns related to the exam in my office. HOWEVER, I REQUIRE THAT YOU COME TO MY OFFICE TO DISCUSS THE EXAM. That means no emails.
3. We'll make you a deal
Here's the deal. If you failed the first exam, Ami and I guarantee that you will pass the class (i.e., we will bump your grade up at the end of the semester) if and only if your performance improves over the course of the semester. Specifically, we require that:
-You attend all lecture and discussion classes (legitimate excuses notwithstanding)
-You submit all homework assignments for the remainder of the semester
-You pass all quizzes for the remainder of the semester
-You pass Exam #2
-You receive a passing grade on the final (project)
Note: These terms are non-negotiable.
You will pass the class - perhaps with room to spare - if you meet the terms of our agreement.
If you violate the terms of the agreement, the deal is off.
Look for an email from Ami regarding this policy.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Final note: In the future, at least try the bonus questions!
2) Informal fallacies, continued
Important to keep in mind:
If an argument is fallacious (that is, if contains a logical fallacy - an invalid inference, or premises that do not adequately support the conclusion of the argument) its conclusion is not necessarily false.
If you identify a fallacy (formal or informal) in an argument, you have good reason to doubt whether the arguer has established the conclusion to be true. But it could be true.
Upshot: be highly suspect of fallacious arguments, but don't dismiss them entirely. At least, don't dismiss them right off the bat.
(Your argument might be invalid, despite the irrelevance of a cat pushing a watermelon out of a lake to that conclusion.)
New material
In groups of 3-4, determine -
a) The common flaw in the arguments listed below, and
b) give your own example to illustrate the problem.
I will update the blog after class on Wednesday to include the names of these fallacies.
I will also cite student examples that accurately illustrate the flaw in reasoning.*
*Incentive: Groups that give me a blog-worthy example earn a bonus point (for each member) on the next exam
Mystery fallacy #1 (+ variation on mystery fallacy #1):
A. Everybody agrees that moving US troops into Crimea would be a bad idea. We shouldn't do it.
B: Most people agree that vitamin C cures the common cold. Therefore, you should take it.
C: A lot of people agree that Hondas are better than Fords, therefore they are.
D. In the spring of 2015 over 105 million Americans ate at McDonald's. The food at McDonald's must be awesome.
Fallacy #1: Ad Populum (appeal to the people)
This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.
Exceptions are cases where popular opinion is relevant (e.g., fashion).
Variation: Bandwagon Effect (very closely related)
Often used in advertising through images of beautiful/happy people using a product... “You can be like us too!”
Student examples (from class):
-Everyone at school is eating Special K to lose weight. I want to lose a few pounds, so I should buy Special K.
-4/5 consumers prefer Colgate toothpaste; I ought to switch to Colgate.*
*NOTE: This example originally said "4/5 dentists prefer... but I've amended it, because that could be considered a legitimate appeal to authority.
Mystery Fallacy #2:
A: The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
B: His healthcare policy is un-American: It needs to be repealed.
C: A true American wouldn't cut funding from our troops. Why do you hate America?
D: Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship. Have a heart!
Fallacy #2: Appeal to Emotions
When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc., instead of providing reasons for or against a position.
Charities use this a lot in their advertising.
Political ads use it a lot too (appeal to nationalism).
Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue.
My example: Eliciting righteous anger/compassion on behalf of a good cause.
Here's MLK Jr. (aka, The freaking MAN), paraphrasing Dante’s Inferno:
“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”
Student examples (from class):
-OMG that ASPCA commercial with Sarah McLaughlin singing is soooo sad. Did you see the kittens reaching out of their cages with their little paws? You should totally give the ASPCA some money.
Mystery Fallacy #3:
A: If you don't get rid of your suspected chemical weapons, we will bomb you.
B: If you don't do your homework, I will beat you.
C. The Pope (c. 1600) to Giordano Bruno: "I'm not saying you have to take back what you said about Copernicus being right and the Catholic Church being wrong. I'm just saying that if you don't recant, we'll burn you at the stake."
D. Letter to Ami: "Dear Professor Palmer, when considering my grade in your class, please keep in mind that my mother is the Dean (your boss)."
Fallacy #3: Ad baculum (appeal to force)
When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.
Student examples (from class):
-If you don't donate to the ASPCA, we're gonna kill all the puppies and kittens*
*Also, we may or may not have psychopaths in our class
Mystery Fallacy #4:
A. Albert Einstein believed in the existence of God. Unless you think you're smarter than Einstein, you ought to believe in God, too.
B. President Mazey (of BGSU) is voting for Trump/Hillary. That's enough to convince me to vote for Trump/Hillary, too.
C. Larry the Cable Guy says that Prilosec (a prescription antacid medication) works wonders. If you have heartburn, you ought to talk to your doctor about Prilosec.
D. If you're depressed, you ought to try meditating. My yoga instructor says it cures depression.
Fallacy #4: Appeal to Unqualified Authority; aka Arugmentum Ad Verecundia; aka, Argument From Reverence/Respect
When someone supports his/her claim by appealing to a non-expert on the subject.
E.g., Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on pop psychology and medicine.
*Differences between legitimate and illegitimate experts can sometimes be subtle, e.g., doctor versus medical researcher. Consider the merits of:
A) a plastic surgeon (M.D.)’s commentary on the merits of vaccines, versus
B) the opinion of an M.D. with a PhD in epidemiology (the study of disease and how it spreads).
Student examples (from the class):
-Obama says eating spaghetti relieves headaches. So if you have a headache, you should eat spaghetti.
Review***********************************************
Think way, way, wayyyy back to last Wednesday...
1. Ad hominem (against the person) & reverse ad hominem
1a. Circumstantial ad hominem & reverse circumstantial ad hominem: cites a person's motivation as reason for dismissing (or embracing) his/her argument*
*Closely related to the concept of a vested interest
E.g., "Liz works with rescued farm animals. Of course she's going to say eating meat is morally wrong."
Catskill Animal Sanctuary
1b. Genetic fallacy & reverse genetic fallacy: cites the source of an argument as reason to dismiss or embrace the argument*
*This one applies to groups/organizations/texts - not just people
E.g., "Sure, the conservative media say that Hillary's a liar. But we all know we can't trust the conservative media."
1c. Tu quoque (too-kwoh-kwe): The hypocrite fallacy.
Donald Trump's attempt at tu quoque prior to the second presidential debate:
1d. Poisoning the well, aka, preemptive ad hominem: Discredits a source/person before the source/person has a chance to present an argument
2. The naturalistic fallacy. You commit this fallacy when you equate natural with good. Three varieties:
2a. Naturalistic fallacy, version 1: cites naturalness as a reason to think a drug, or whatever sort of product is healthier, safer, or more effective.
Example:
Today's word of the day is panacea.
Panacea = def. A cure-all; a cure for everything. As in:
According to certain natural medicine & homeopathy enthusiasts, coconut oil is a panacea.
Note: probably don't trust a doctor who spells "blood sugar stabilizer" "blood sugar stabalizer..."
The problem:
2b. Naturalistic fallacy, version 2: If something's natural, it's morally good. If something's unnatural, it's morally bad.
E.g., "It's natural for humans to eat meat. Therefore, it's morally permissible."*
*As discussed in class, it's easy to run a reductio on this claim.
2c. Naturalistic fallacy, version 3: Argument from tradition, or argument from ancient authority.
"We've always done or thought X, so we should keep doing or thinking X (efficacy)."
E.g., "Women gave birth naturally forever, so..."
OR
"We've always done or thought X, so we should keep doing or thinking X (morality)."
E.g., "We've always thought women belong at home, so..."
End review*******************************
If time (unlikely!) work on some homework examples in groups:
a) Identify the logical fallacy, and
b) explain why the premises are irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion:
1. A: You need to do more squats if you want to make gainz.
B: Yeah, but you never squat. All you do is chest and biceps.
2. A: Dude, no, Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Go read it on Snopes.
B: Snopes? You expect me to believe something run by liberals?
3. For almost all of human history marriage was between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's wrong to allow gay marriage.
3) Informal mid-semester course evaluation
I would appreciate you taking the time to fill out my anonymous & informal mid-semester course evaluation.
Please focus your responses on the discussion component of the course, i.e., my teaching. Feel free to add comments regarding the lecture portion of the course in the last comments section.
Place completed evaluations in the envelope provided.
Thank you!!
1) Return exams & some comments regarding Exam #1*
*Not a review.
A few of your classmates had unavoidable conflicts on Friday and arranged in advance to take the exam after break.
Also, we have new material to cover.
So, I won't be discussing the answers to Exam #1 in class on Wednesday.
I am happy to discuss exams during office hours (see below).
2) Informal fallacies, continued
a) New fallacies
Group exercises: What's wrong with this argument?
b) Review (examples from last week)
Homework questions?
3) "Grading" me
Perhaps not the best timing, given that I've just returned your exams... But in the last 10-ish minutes of class I'll ask you to fill out informal mid-semester evaluations of me & this class.
Please take the time to fill out the form, which is anonymous, and to leave comments. Your input is very important to me. I will adjust the format of the class (within reason) in light of students' feedback.
1) Comments regarding Exam #1
-Many students did quite well, and the grade distribution was just about what we expected.
-If you are unhappy with your grade, I have a few suggestions:
1. Don't panic
-Logic is hard
-It is very easy to do very poorly on a logic exam.
This is because many of the answers are non-negotiable. I tried my best to give you partial credit - and generous partial credit - where possible. However, in many cases, given the nature of the subject matter, there wasn't much (or any) "wiggle room." An inference is either valid or invalid. Either you formalize the argument correctly, or you don't. These mistakes add up and, with no partial credit possible, grades can plummet.
-The semester ain't over til it's over
-This was just the first exam. You've got another exam, a final project, several quizzes, the usual slew of homework assignments, and extra credit opportunities to come...
-The first exam is usually the hardest
-In general, students tend to do slightly better on subsequent exams simply because they know what to expect.
2. Come see me
Come see me in 340 Shatzel Hall.
I'll be in 340 Shatzel Hall; come see me.
Come to office hours in 340 Shatzel Hall.
Make an appointment to meet me in 340 Shatzel Hall.
Did I mention that you ought to stop by 340 Shatzel Hall?
Come to my office in 340 Shatzel Hall.
There's candy.
(There is no candy. But you should still come see me.)
-Please note that if I wrote "Come see me" on your exam you are not in trouble, nor are you required to come see me. However, I strongly recommend that you see me during office hours to discuss your exam.
In general: I am happy to discuss any and all questions/concerns related to the exam in my office. HOWEVER, I REQUIRE THAT YOU COME TO MY OFFICE TO DISCUSS THE EXAM. That means no emails.
3. We'll make you a deal
Here's the deal. If you failed the first exam, Ami and I guarantee that you will pass the class (i.e., we will bump your grade up at the end of the semester) if and only if your performance improves over the course of the semester. Specifically, we require that:
-You attend all lecture and discussion classes (legitimate excuses notwithstanding)
-You submit all homework assignments for the remainder of the semester
-You pass all quizzes for the remainder of the semester
-You pass Exam #2
-You receive a passing grade on the final (project)
Note: These terms are non-negotiable.
You will pass the class - perhaps with room to spare - if you meet the terms of our agreement.
If you violate the terms of the agreement, the deal is off.
Look for an email from Ami regarding this policy.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Final note: In the future, at least try the bonus questions!
2) Informal fallacies, continued
Important to keep in mind:
If an argument is fallacious (that is, if contains a logical fallacy - an invalid inference, or premises that do not adequately support the conclusion of the argument) its conclusion is not necessarily false.
If you identify a fallacy (formal or informal) in an argument, you have good reason to doubt whether the arguer has established the conclusion to be true. But it could be true.
Upshot: be highly suspect of fallacious arguments, but don't dismiss them entirely. At least, don't dismiss them right off the bat.
(Your argument might be invalid, despite the irrelevance of a cat pushing a watermelon out of a lake to that conclusion.)
New material
In groups of 3-4, determine -
a) The common flaw in the arguments listed below, and
b) give your own example to illustrate the problem.
I will update the blog after class on Wednesday to include the names of these fallacies.
I will also cite student examples that accurately illustrate the flaw in reasoning.*
*Incentive: Groups that give me a blog-worthy example earn a bonus point (for each member) on the next exam
Mystery fallacy #1 (+ variation on mystery fallacy #1):
A. Everybody agrees that moving US troops into Crimea would be a bad idea. We shouldn't do it.
B: Most people agree that vitamin C cures the common cold. Therefore, you should take it.
C: A lot of people agree that Hondas are better than Fords, therefore they are.
D. In the spring of 2015 over 105 million Americans ate at McDonald's. The food at McDonald's must be awesome.
Fallacy #1: Ad Populum (appeal to the people)
This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.
Exceptions are cases where popular opinion is relevant (e.g., fashion).
Variation: Bandwagon Effect (very closely related)
Often used in advertising through images of beautiful/happy people using a product... “You can be like us too!”
Student examples (from class):
-Everyone at school is eating Special K to lose weight. I want to lose a few pounds, so I should buy Special K.
-4/5 consumers prefer Colgate toothpaste; I ought to switch to Colgate.*
*NOTE: This example originally said "4/5 dentists prefer... but I've amended it, because that could be considered a legitimate appeal to authority.
Mystery Fallacy #2:
A: The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
B: His healthcare policy is un-American: It needs to be repealed.
C: A true American wouldn't cut funding from our troops. Why do you hate America?
D: Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship. Have a heart!
Fallacy #2: Appeal to Emotions
When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc., instead of providing reasons for or against a position.
Charities use this a lot in their advertising.
Political ads use it a lot too (appeal to nationalism).
Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue.
My example: Eliciting righteous anger/compassion on behalf of a good cause.
Here's MLK Jr. (aka, The freaking MAN), paraphrasing Dante’s Inferno:
“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”
Student examples (from class):
-OMG that ASPCA commercial with Sarah McLaughlin singing is soooo sad. Did you see the kittens reaching out of their cages with their little paws? You should totally give the ASPCA some money.
Mystery Fallacy #3:
A: If you don't get rid of your suspected chemical weapons, we will bomb you.
B: If you don't do your homework, I will beat you.
C. The Pope (c. 1600) to Giordano Bruno: "I'm not saying you have to take back what you said about Copernicus being right and the Catholic Church being wrong. I'm just saying that if you don't recant, we'll burn you at the stake."
D. Letter to Ami: "Dear Professor Palmer, when considering my grade in your class, please keep in mind that my mother is the Dean (your boss)."
Fallacy #3: Ad baculum (appeal to force)
When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.
Student examples (from class):
-If you don't donate to the ASPCA, we're gonna kill all the puppies and kittens*
*Also, we may or may not have psychopaths in our class
Mystery Fallacy #4:
A. Albert Einstein believed in the existence of God. Unless you think you're smarter than Einstein, you ought to believe in God, too.
B. President Mazey (of BGSU) is voting for Trump/Hillary. That's enough to convince me to vote for Trump/Hillary, too.
C. Larry the Cable Guy says that Prilosec (a prescription antacid medication) works wonders. If you have heartburn, you ought to talk to your doctor about Prilosec.
D. If you're depressed, you ought to try meditating. My yoga instructor says it cures depression.
Fallacy #4: Appeal to Unqualified Authority; aka Arugmentum Ad Verecundia; aka, Argument From Reverence/Respect
When someone supports his/her claim by appealing to a non-expert on the subject.
E.g., Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on pop psychology and medicine.
*Differences between legitimate and illegitimate experts can sometimes be subtle, e.g., doctor versus medical researcher. Consider the merits of:
A) a plastic surgeon (M.D.)’s commentary on the merits of vaccines, versus
B) the opinion of an M.D. with a PhD in epidemiology (the study of disease and how it spreads).
Student examples (from the class):
-Obama says eating spaghetti relieves headaches. So if you have a headache, you should eat spaghetti.
Review***********************************************
Think way, way, wayyyy back to last Wednesday...
1. Ad hominem (against the person) & reverse ad hominem
1a. Circumstantial ad hominem & reverse circumstantial ad hominem: cites a person's motivation as reason for dismissing (or embracing) his/her argument*
*Closely related to the concept of a vested interest
E.g., "Liz works with rescued farm animals. Of course she's going to say eating meat is morally wrong."
Catskill Animal Sanctuary
1b. Genetic fallacy & reverse genetic fallacy: cites the source of an argument as reason to dismiss or embrace the argument*
*This one applies to groups/organizations/texts - not just people
E.g., "Sure, the conservative media say that Hillary's a liar. But we all know we can't trust the conservative media."
1c. Tu quoque (too-kwoh-kwe): The hypocrite fallacy.
Donald Trump's attempt at tu quoque prior to the second presidential debate:
1d. Poisoning the well, aka, preemptive ad hominem: Discredits a source/person before the source/person has a chance to present an argument
2. The naturalistic fallacy. You commit this fallacy when you equate natural with good. Three varieties:
2a. Naturalistic fallacy, version 1: cites naturalness as a reason to think a drug, or whatever sort of product is healthier, safer, or more effective.
Example:
Today's word of the day is panacea.
Panacea = def. A cure-all; a cure for everything. As in:
According to certain natural medicine & homeopathy enthusiasts, coconut oil is a panacea.
Note: probably don't trust a doctor who spells "blood sugar stabilizer" "blood sugar stabalizer..."
The problem:
2b. Naturalistic fallacy, version 2: If something's natural, it's morally good. If something's unnatural, it's morally bad.
E.g., "It's natural for humans to eat meat. Therefore, it's morally permissible."*
*As discussed in class, it's easy to run a reductio on this claim.
2c. Naturalistic fallacy, version 3: Argument from tradition, or argument from ancient authority.
"We've always done or thought X, so we should keep doing or thinking X (efficacy)."
E.g., "Women gave birth naturally forever, so..."
OR
"We've always done or thought X, so we should keep doing or thinking X (morality)."
E.g., "We've always thought women belong at home, so..."
End review*******************************
If time (unlikely!) work on some homework examples in groups:
a) Identify the logical fallacy, and
b) explain why the premises are irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion:
1. A: You need to do more squats if you want to make gainz.
B: Yeah, but you never squat. All you do is chest and biceps.
2. A: Dude, no, Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Go read it on Snopes.
B: Snopes? You expect me to believe something run by liberals?
3. For almost all of human history marriage was between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's wrong to allow gay marriage.
3) Informal mid-semester course evaluation
I would appreciate you taking the time to fill out my anonymous & informal mid-semester course evaluation.
Please focus your responses on the discussion component of the course, i.e., my teaching. Feel free to add comments regarding the lecture portion of the course in the last comments section.
Place completed evaluations in the envelope provided.
Thank you!!
Monday, October 3, 2016
Wednesday 10/5: MP, MT, AC, DA, Exam #1 Review
1) Exam #1 Friday (10/7)
-Study guide & practice exam posted on Canvas
-Review old homework assignments & come see me with questions
-Review quizzes: If you don't understand an answer, come see me
E.g.... Only 38% of students got this question right on the quiz:
-EXAM #1 REVIEW SESSION
Thursday (10/6) 6-8pm, Shatzel Hall 317
*If you can't make the review session, come see me, Ami, or John
2) MP, MT, AC, DA
-Formalizing arguments
-Review
-Practice questions
3) Test review
-Practice questions
MP, MT, AC, DA
(Refer back to last blog post)
-Review: conditional statements
If the cat is on the mat, then the cat is asleep
M = The cat is on the mat
A = The cat is asleep
Formalized:
M > A (If M, then A)
The part of a conditional that follows "if" is called the antecedent
In this example, the antecedent is "The cat is on the mat"
The part of a conditional that follows "then" is called the consequent.*
*Note that sometimes, "then" is implicit. E.g., if someone told you, "If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep," you would infer "then" in front of "the cat is asleep" even though it's not stated.
In this example, the consequent is "The cat is asleep"
It may help to label the antecedent and the consequent when you formalize the argument, as below:
Pay special attention to the second formulation!
Order doesn't matter
Whatever comes after the "if" is the antecedent
Whatever comes after the "then" (sometimes implicit) is the consequent
English does not capture the logical dependence order. Logical notation does.
In short:
When you put the argument in logical form, you always put the ANTECEDENT FIRST and the CONSEQUENT SECOND
A > C
(If antecedent, then consequent)
Thus, "The cat is asleep if the cat is on the mat" in logic speak is also:
M > A
-Formalizing arguments, review
Symbols
> (conditional) = "If...then..."
Example:
A > B = If A, then B
~ (negation) = "Not"*
Example:
~C = Not C
*Whenever a premise contains a negative (not, won't, didn't, etc.) use the ~ to indicate
E.g. It is not raining = ~R
Method:
1) Figure out what the conclusion is
2) Figure out what the premises are
(Label, underline, diagram, put the argument in standard form... whatever you need to do to keep track of what's what)
3) Make a translation key*
*You don't have to do this when Ami indicates what letters you should use, but in other cases you need to indicate what the letters you choose symbolize
4) Symbolize the argument in premise-conclusion form
5) DOUBLE CHECK: TRANSLATE YOUR SYMBOLIZATION BACK INTO ENGLISH TO SEE IF IT MAKES SENSE!! <-- This will help you catch errors
Example:
If the cat is on the mat, then the cat is asleep. The cat is on the mat. Therefore, the cat is asleep.
P1) If the cat...
P2) The cat is on the mat
C) The cat is asleep
Key:
M= The cat's on the mat
A = The cat's asleep
P1) M > A
P2) M
C) A
-VALID INFERENCE RULES:
If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST BE TRUE
*You cannot find counterexamples to these arguments
Modus ponens:
P1) A>B
P2) A
C) B
P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is on the mat
C) The cat is asleep
Modus tollens:
P1) A>B
P2) ~B
C) ~A
P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is not asleep
C) The cat is not on the mat
-INVALID INFERENCES (NOPE NOPE NOPE)
*You can find counterexamples to these arguments!
Bad/AC: Affirming the consequent
(Modus ponens gone wrong)
P1) A>B
P2) B
C) A <-- does not follow
P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is asleep
C) The cat is on the mat
Counterexample: It is not necessarily true that the cat is on the mat, because the cat could be asleep elsewhere. My cat sleeps on my bed, on the kitchen table, in the windowsill, on my laptop, on the couch, in her cat tree... (where do cats not sleep???)
Bad/DA: Denying the antecedent
(Modus tollens gone wrong)
P1) A>B
P2) ~A
C) ~B <-- does not follow
P1) If the cat is on the mat, then the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is not on the mat
C) The cat is not asleep
Counterexample: See explanation above. It is not necessarily true that the cat is not asleep, because the cat could be asleep elsewhere (for instance, on my clean laundry).
(For all you dog lovers, here is a picture of a dog on a mat)
Note regarding negatives: Pay attention to the form of the argument. Don't let negatives throw you off!
This argument is also in modus ponens form:
~M > A
~M
______
A
Modus tollens:
~M > A
~A
______
~~M
Bad/AC:
~M > A
A
______
~M
Bad/DA:
~M > A
~~M
______
~A
Practice
(From Homework 3.3)
a) Symbolize the argument (use the first letter of the underlined word and '~' for negation).
(b) Is the argument valid? If it is, cite whether it's modus tollens or modus ponens. If it isn't, cite whether it's denying the antecedent (DA) or affirming the consequent (AC).
4. You don't want to be my lover because if you want be my lover you gotta get with my friends. And last night when I asked you to get with my friends, you said "no."
9. You won't have to drown your sorrows if you do well on the test. You don't have to drown your sorrows, therefore you did well on the test.
More examples:
1. If it barks, it's a dog. It doesn't bark. Therefore, it's not a dog.
2. You're going to do well on the test if you study. You study. Therefore, you're going to do well on the test.
3. If there's smoke, there's fire. There's no smoke, because there's no fire.
4. This dish tastes awful. You must've put too much salt in it. If you put too much salt in a dish, it always tastes awful.
More practice:
MP, MT, DA, AC
(a) Identify the missing premise then (b) put the argument into standard premise-conclusion form. (c) Evaluate the argument for soundness. (d) See if you can construct a reductio (where applicable).
1.
P1) Historically humans have always eaten meat.
C) It is morally permissible to eat factory farmed meat.
2.
P1) Factory farming creates health risks for humans.
C) Therefore, factory farming is wrong.
Practice question for Exam #1:
If you want to do well then you should bring your TA cookies. You didn’t bring your TA cookies. Therefore, you don’t want to do well. P1. P2. C. Valid/Invalid:_______________. Reasoning Pattern: _________.
Comprehensive practice question for Exam #1
(a) Put the following arguments into standard premise-conclusion form (just write the first 3 words of each premise). Number the premises according to their position in the original arguments.
(b) Identify whether the premises are convergent, serial, or linked
(c) Identify whether the argument is inductive or deductive and its logical force (valid, invalid, strong, weak)
(d.i.) Determine which premises are acceptable, questionable, unacceptable using the various criteria we’ve discussed in class (5 for acceptability, 3 for questionable, 3 for unacceptable).
(d. ii) If a premise is questionable say what information you’d need in order to accept it.
(e) Diagram the arguments in the space next to where you write the premises.
1. In recent years, health trends became a mark of status. For example, a high-end health food store (Whole Foods) grew into a supermarket-chain juggernaut. Designer clothing is now yoga-wear. Also, refusing to eat gluten is a way to show one’s status.
(a). P1.
P2.
P3.
C.
(b) Premises are all: Linked, convergent, serial (circle).
(c) P1 in relation to the conclusion is: (circle the correct answers) i. Inductive vs Deductive ii. Valid, Invalid, Strong, Weak
P2 in relation to the conclusion is: i. Inductive vs Deductive ii. Valid, Invalid, Strong, Weak
P3 in relation to the conclusion is: i. Inductive vs Deductive ii. Valid, Invalid, Strong, Weak
(d) P1. Acceptable/Questionable/Unacceptable because:
P2. Acceptable/Questionable/Unacceptable because:
P3. Acceptable/Questionable/Unacceptable because:
(e) Diagram:
-Study guide & practice exam posted on Canvas
-Review old homework assignments & come see me with questions
-Review quizzes: If you don't understand an answer, come see me
E.g.... Only 38% of students got this question right on the quiz:
What best describes the following argument in regards to kind, logical force, and premise acceptability?
Most students who do all the homework assignments and have zero absences do well on the exam. Therefore, Megan will do well on the exam because she did all the homework assignments and hasn't missed a single class. (Assume it's true that Megan is a student, that she did all the homework assignments, and didn't miss any classes).
Most students who do all the homework assignments and have zero absences do well on the exam. Therefore, Megan will do well on the exam because she did all the homework assignments and hasn't missed a single class. (Assume it's true that Megan is a student, that she did all the homework assignments, and didn't miss any classes).
+0.55
Discrimination Index
A table of student answers
| Answer Text | Number of Respondents | Percent of respondents selecting this answer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inductive, cogent. | 38 % | ||
| Inductive, strong but uncogent. | 17 % | ||
| Deductive and valid. | 8 % | ||
| Deductive and sound. | 34 % | ||
| Deductive, valid but not sound. | 4 % |
-EXAM #1 REVIEW SESSION
Thursday (10/6) 6-8pm, Shatzel Hall 317
*If you can't make the review session, come see me, Ami, or John
2) MP, MT, AC, DA
-Formalizing arguments
-Review
-Practice questions
3) Test review
-Practice questions
MP, MT, AC, DA
(Refer back to last blog post)
-Review: conditional statements
If the cat is on the mat, then the cat is asleep
M = The cat is on the mat
A = The cat is asleep
Formalized:
M > A (If M, then A)
The part of a conditional that follows "if" is called the antecedent
In this example, the antecedent is "The cat is on the mat"
The part of a conditional that follows "then" is called the consequent.*
*Note that sometimes, "then" is implicit. E.g., if someone told you, "If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep," you would infer "then" in front of "the cat is asleep" even though it's not stated.
In this example, the consequent is "The cat is asleep"
It may help to label the antecedent and the consequent when you formalize the argument, as below:
Pay special attention to the second formulation!
Order doesn't matter
Whatever comes after the "if" is the antecedent
Whatever comes after the "then" (sometimes implicit) is the consequent
English does not capture the logical dependence order. Logical notation does.
In short:
When you put the argument in logical form, you always put the ANTECEDENT FIRST and the CONSEQUENT SECOND
A > C
(If antecedent, then consequent)
Thus, "The cat is asleep if the cat is on the mat" in logic speak is also:
M > A
-Formalizing arguments, review
Symbols
> (conditional) = "If...then..."
Example:
A > B = If A, then B
~ (negation) = "Not"*
Example:
~C = Not C
*Whenever a premise contains a negative (not, won't, didn't, etc.) use the ~ to indicate
E.g. It is not raining = ~R
Method:
1) Figure out what the conclusion is
2) Figure out what the premises are
(Label, underline, diagram, put the argument in standard form... whatever you need to do to keep track of what's what)
3) Make a translation key*
*You don't have to do this when Ami indicates what letters you should use, but in other cases you need to indicate what the letters you choose symbolize
4) Symbolize the argument in premise-conclusion form
5) DOUBLE CHECK: TRANSLATE YOUR SYMBOLIZATION BACK INTO ENGLISH TO SEE IF IT MAKES SENSE!! <-- This will help you catch errors
Example:
If the cat is on the mat, then the cat is asleep. The cat is on the mat. Therefore, the cat is asleep.
P1) If the cat...
P2) The cat is on the mat
C) The cat is asleep
Key:
M= The cat's on the mat
A = The cat's asleep
P1) M > A
P2) M
C) A
-VALID INFERENCE RULES:
If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST BE TRUE
*You cannot find counterexamples to these arguments
Modus ponens:
P1) A>B
P2) A
C) B
P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is on the mat
C) The cat is asleep
Modus tollens:
P1) A>B
P2) ~B
C) ~A
P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is not asleep
C) The cat is not on the mat
-INVALID INFERENCES (NOPE NOPE NOPE)
*You can find counterexamples to these arguments!
Bad/AC: Affirming the consequent
(Modus ponens gone wrong)
P1) A>B
P2) B
C) A <-- does not follow
P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is asleep
C) The cat is on the mat
Counterexample: It is not necessarily true that the cat is on the mat, because the cat could be asleep elsewhere. My cat sleeps on my bed, on the kitchen table, in the windowsill, on my laptop, on the couch, in her cat tree... (where do cats not sleep???)
Bad/DA: Denying the antecedent
(Modus tollens gone wrong)
P1) A>B
P2) ~A
C) ~B <-- does not follow
P1) If the cat is on the mat, then the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is not on the mat
C) The cat is not asleep
Counterexample: See explanation above. It is not necessarily true that the cat is not asleep, because the cat could be asleep elsewhere (for instance, on my clean laundry).
(For all you dog lovers, here is a picture of a dog on a mat)
Note regarding negatives: Pay attention to the form of the argument. Don't let negatives throw you off!
This argument is also in modus ponens form:
~M > A
~M
______
A
Modus tollens:
~M > A
~A
______
~~M
Bad/AC:
~M > A
A
______
~M
Bad/DA:
~M > A
~~M
______
~A
Practice
(From Homework 3.3)
a) Symbolize the argument (use the first letter of the underlined word and '~' for negation).
(b) Is the argument valid? If it is, cite whether it's modus tollens or modus ponens. If it isn't, cite whether it's denying the antecedent (DA) or affirming the consequent (AC).
4. You don't want to be my lover because if you want be my lover you gotta get with my friends. And last night when I asked you to get with my friends, you said "no."
9. You won't have to drown your sorrows if you do well on the test. You don't have to drown your sorrows, therefore you did well on the test.
More examples:
1. If it barks, it's a dog. It doesn't bark. Therefore, it's not a dog.
2. You're going to do well on the test if you study. You study. Therefore, you're going to do well on the test.
3. If there's smoke, there's fire. There's no smoke, because there's no fire.
4. This dish tastes awful. You must've put too much salt in it. If you put too much salt in a dish, it always tastes awful.
More practice:
MP, MT, DA, AC
(a) Identify the missing premise then (b) put the argument into standard premise-conclusion form. (c) Evaluate the argument for soundness. (d) See if you can construct a reductio (where applicable).
1.
P1) Historically humans have always eaten meat.
C) It is morally permissible to eat factory farmed meat.
2.
P1) Factory farming creates health risks for humans.
C) Therefore, factory farming is wrong.
Practice question for Exam #1:
If you want to do well then you should bring your TA cookies. You didn’t bring your TA cookies. Therefore, you don’t want to do well. P1. P2. C. Valid/Invalid:_______________. Reasoning Pattern: _________.
Comprehensive practice question for Exam #1
(a) Put the following arguments into standard premise-conclusion form (just write the first 3 words of each premise). Number the premises according to their position in the original arguments.
(b) Identify whether the premises are convergent, serial, or linked
(c) Identify whether the argument is inductive or deductive and its logical force (valid, invalid, strong, weak)
(d.i.) Determine which premises are acceptable, questionable, unacceptable using the various criteria we’ve discussed in class (5 for acceptability, 3 for questionable, 3 for unacceptable).
(d. ii) If a premise is questionable say what information you’d need in order to accept it.
(e) Diagram the arguments in the space next to where you write the premises.
1. In recent years, health trends became a mark of status. For example, a high-end health food store (Whole Foods) grew into a supermarket-chain juggernaut. Designer clothing is now yoga-wear. Also, refusing to eat gluten is a way to show one’s status.
(a). P1.
P2.
P3.
C.
(b) Premises are all: Linked, convergent, serial (circle).
(c) P1 in relation to the conclusion is: (circle the correct answers) i. Inductive vs Deductive ii. Valid, Invalid, Strong, Weak
P2 in relation to the conclusion is: i. Inductive vs Deductive ii. Valid, Invalid, Strong, Weak
P3 in relation to the conclusion is: i. Inductive vs Deductive ii. Valid, Invalid, Strong, Weak
(d) P1. Acceptable/Questionable/Unacceptable because:
P2. Acceptable/Questionable/Unacceptable because:
P3. Acceptable/Questionable/Unacceptable because:
(e) Diagram:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)















